There are a couple of possible versions of the amendment floating around so it is interesting how so many people, myself included, have taken a side before even seeing one final version. I’m against the concept of altering the constitution for almost any purpose, that is my explanation. Still, James Taranto has a proposal for an amendment that would work for those of us who believe in state’s rights and also appease those who don’t want the laws of some states imposing their will on others: “Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to require any state or the federal government to recognize any marriage except between a man and a woman.”
What do you think?
Posted by Karol at 07:36 PM
I don’t think the Constitution should be used to restrict personal rights, but to protect them. However, we’re dealing with people have no qualms about using the judicial branch of government to write laws they can’t get through the legislative branch. If we have to write a constitutional amendment in order to protect the Constitution from being destroyed by activist judges, I’m behind it. I’ll have to see how this amendment is wording, though.
But I love how the democrats have suddenly become staunch defenders of the Constitution as it was written. I guess it’s only a “living, breathing document”, malleable and abtract, when they to change it’s meaning. If the left thought they could pass amendments for any of their insane ideas, there’d be no stopping them.
What do I think? I’m thinking how strange it is that you haven’t mentioned anything about Greenspan’s bombshell testimony earlier today.
I come here looking for some kind of insightful analysis and……..nothing.
That’s what I’m thinking.
Rick, the Social Security news? Yes, bombshell, the system can’t support itself now that boomers will be retiring, how completely unexpected. Perhaps a system that pays everyone who hits retirement age, including Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, is not the bestest then?
I found it very interesting that Greenspan also said that benefits (i.e. medicare) should get cut and taxes should not be raised [but perhaps lowered again].
On the amendment, I’m basically with Rob. This isn’t my favorite issue and if gay marriage were established through the democratic process, we’d all just have to live with it. Indeed, because attitudes may change over time, I’m not that enthusiastic about enshrining the traditional marriage concept in the Constitution. OTOH, it’s outrageous that the attitudes of unelected alleged advanced thinkers in Massachusetts, SF, etc. may well end up imposed on the entire country through the application of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, unless there’s an amendment.
On Social Security, I note that Bush has proposed individual investment accounts for younger workers, which the Democrats have staunchly opposed. This may not be a panacea, but at least it’s a recognition of the need for higher returns and a constructive idea.