Alarming News

February 25, 2004

Just sayin’

I am against amending the Constitution to codify what marriage is or isn’t. Still, it’s been curious today hearing other opponents of the amendment saying ‘why now, we’ve got so many other problems, why is Bush doing this now?’ Seriously, that’s an easy one.
Update: Annika is for gay marriage and for the amendment. Go read her interesting take.
Further Update: While against the amendment, Physics Geek has some words for those that were voting for President Bush but say they won’t now that he is supporting the amendment. He also has a good roundup of other blogger reactions.

Posted by Karol at 01:03 AM |
Comments

Bush is very reactive isn’t he, too bad that’s not leadership.

Posted by: Dawn Summers at February 25, 2004 at 9:13 am

I disagree, leaving this to the states would be the opposite of leadership.
The Constitution would force other states to recognize something they think is wrong. An amendment settles that.
Common sense tells me a majority of states would not legalize gay marriage, so how is it right to force those majority states to accept those unions as legal when they come in from the minority states? (And please, no comparisons to black Americans and civil rights)

Posted by: michael parker at February 25, 2004 at 9:28 am

Karol:
Conservatives often learn too late that liberals will find constitutional rights to anything. This time round, we know what is ahead of us if nothing is done. The purpose of amending the constitution is not to change anything but to help stop things from changing.
Opposing the amendment (if it is worded the right way) is essentially the same thing as supporting gay marriage because without the amendment, gay marriage is going to be the law of the nation within a few years.
Dan

Posted by: Dan at February 25, 2004 at 10:02 am

Bush is hardly reactive. He’s been talking about this all year. And he’s been the only major politician with a definitive stance. Everyone else has been waiting to see what the polls tell us, so they can shape their stance to the majority opinion.
Regarless of the final outcome of an Amendment, Bush wins on this issue. Either the Dems must immitate or oppose. Kerry is now faced with agreeing with Bush or not. His call.
Similarly, I like to compare Bush’s stance on this like his stance on the War on Terror. An Amendment was like Resolution 1441. The threat of force/threat of an Amendment is not just a threat, but a total possible reality. Do people think Bush is kidding, that this is a game? The Amendment was not a preferred option, but a last resort, and conditions in MA,SF/NM have brought us to the point where Bush felt he must exercise that option.
The point is, this is a serious issue, not a fad. While we all laugh and joke about it, Bush is fighting with all options to preserve the sanctity of marriage.

Posted by: Scott S at February 25, 2004 at 12:11 pm

I have real problems with the whole “sanctity of marriage” argument.
1. Sanctity is not built into the Constitution. As a matter of fact, the Constitution explicitly protects the rights of The People to determine what is sacred and profane. Government isn’t supposed to have anything to do with that.
2. I’m divorced. Not my idea, but I wasn’t going to try to force something that wasn’t going to work. Likewise, I don’t think the government would have been doing me any favors by preventing the divorce. (No kids, if anyone is wondering.) That divorce is legal at all plays back to my first point, I think.
3. Gay people getting married has zilch to do with the problems straights seem to have keeping it together. Give me a break. Seeing two guys smooching does not make me think “Hmmm….. I should dump my wife and get hitched with Bob!”
4. It’s been a while since I did a close reading on the thing, but I can’t recall that any social contract stuff being in there. Marriage is a convention, and I will repeat: convention itself is not protected by the Constitution.
I’m very disappointed with Bush here. Dawn, I don’t agree that this isn’t an instance of leadership, but just because he’s trying to lead me someplace doesn’t mean I’m going to follow. I will vote for Bush in the fall, but I’m going to actively campaign against this very bad idea.
Leaders have to listen too. Let’s see if this one will recognize a mistake and adjust.

Posted by: mark at February 25, 2004 at 2:05 pm

And Mark officially wins the argument. In my book.

Posted by: Ari at February 25, 2004 at 4:11 pm

Mark,
Marraige is not, nor has ever been, a right under our Constitution. Your argument is based on this not being true so it is fatally flawed.
I am totally behind Bush on this. A tiny minority is trying to usurp our long established laws and customs (using cocksuckingly arrogant so-called judges) for their own narrow and selfish agenda. It is also making a mockery and abomination out of one of every religion’s most cherished sacraments.
I’d love for Arnold to throw that dreg SF mayor in jail. Then we’d see how much he loves sodomites.

Posted by: Radical Redneck at February 25, 2004 at 5:07 pm

Wow, Mark I completely disagree with you on almost every point you made, but at the same time I don’t think marriage should be expressly written into the Constitution.
1. If the gov’t is not supposed to have anything to do with what is sacred or profane why don’t they just follow the laws in the books, i.e. marriage is between a man and a woman, when will I be able to marry a relative, do incest laws
change with homosexual marriages ??(I know my brother will make a good father…lol). WE have to draw the moral line somewhere it can’t just be a free for all, where do we live in Caligula’s Rome ???
I will try and explain more but I unfortunately underestimated the length of my response….I agree with Radical that POS governor should be on trial, he has committed a crime much greater than someone like Martha Stewart.

Posted by: DTDT at February 25, 2004 at 6:07 pm

To be clear, i do not support the amendment per se, i support the fact that the outcome of this debate will be decided by legislatures and not judges. Submitting the controversy to the process of constitutional amendment is the only way to get it out of the courtroom.
There was a time when courts would decline to rule on cases like this, saying that it was a job for the legislature. Unfortunately that era of judicial restraint is gone.
As a person who favors gay marriage, i am not afraid of the proposed amendment. It won’t pass. California voters overwhelmingly passed a defense of marriage referendum just two years ago. Yet just today i heard that the latest poll of California voters has them evenly split on Bush’s proposed amendment. Public opinion is changing fast.

Posted by: annika at February 25, 2004 at 6:42 pm
Post a comment