Federal Marriage Amendment: Even more bs from Bush
From Bush’s recent radio address on the federal marriage amendment:
In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives. And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people
…we’re in a free society?
Another portion:
These court decisions could have an impact on our whole Nation. The Defense of Marriage Act declares that no state is required to accept another state’s definition of marriage. If that act is overturned by activist courts, then marriages recognized in one city or state might have to be recognized as marriages everywhere else.
Perhaps not. There’s no legal statute that requires states to recognize traditional marriages made in another state. They just simply do it. To the best of my knowledge (and I did a few searches to double-check), there exists NO law requiring that one state recognize a man and woman’s marriage that was made in another state. They simply do. *shrug*
By the way, in my opinion, we will not win this fight. If the FMA doesn’t pass, this time, it will the next time, or the next. Ultimately, marriage will eventually be legally defined, nation-wide, unequivocably as between one man and one woman. We simply have to hope that the idiots don’t strike down civil unions, too. The current proposed amendment, allows the states the ability to make their own choices defining civil unions. Bush is even nice enough to say so:
The constitutional amendment that the Senate will consider next week would fully protect marriage from being redefined, while leaving state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.
What bothers me most about this?
A constitutional amendment is the most democratic solution to this issue, because it must be approved by two-thirds of the House and Senate and then ratified by three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures.
Yeah.. us, the people, have no direct vote on the ratification of the amendment. It’s up to the people we elected to decide….
…personally, I’m already of the mindset that the instant they took office, they stopped representing us, and started representing their corporate backers, and other members of their party.
*(Note: some states do run a ballot election to determine whether or not the people wish the amendment to be ratified. It’s been so long since the last time, I can’t remember if Texas does, or not.)
Technorati Tags: Gay rights. gay marriage, federal marriage amendment
3 Comments so far
1. Terry Mitchell wrote on June 11th, 2006 at 9:24 pm
Okay, so you argue that gays should be allowed to marry. Would you also say those under under 15 should be allowed to marry? What about a brother and a sister? If your answer is no to either, please explain your inconsistent views.
Terry Mitchell
The Ultimate Authority on U.S. Politics
2. Eric wrote on June 12th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
Terry,
The answer to both of your questions, in my opinion, is “yes”. Let me take them, individually, and explain:
Those under 15: Throughout time, and throughout many, many cultures (including many anglo and protestant cultures, throughout time), marriage under the age of fifteen has been quite normal. There are some cultures and locations where girls as young as twelve and thirteen were married. There are some cultures where this is still practiced, today.
If this is of the norm in the culture, I see no reason to restrict it. Additionally (in our culture), if the individuals can demonstrate the maturity and understanding of what they are embarking upon, then yes, absolutely they should be allowed to marry. (Hence the reason we have parental consent, to ensure that individuals that young have reached that level of maturity. I’ve got to be honest with you, I see – on a fairly regular basis – some 20-something year olds getting married that don’t have the neccesary maturity to handle themselves, let along their relationship. Personally, I’d love to see some sort of psychological profiling required, beforehand… but that’s a different discussion).
What about a brother and sister, indeed. For starters, let me point out that you said nothing about having children. I fully believe that a biological brother and sister should not have their own children, due to the genetic flaws that often appear in such cases. As for marriage? Certainly. There have been hundreds, if not thousands (or even millions) of cases reported where romantic love existed between biological family members. I see no reason that two individuals who truly love each other should not marry, given that they understand the ramifications of such a comittment.
Thank you for your comment and questions, Terry, they are much appreciated. Although I do have to be honest that I don’t think you’re quite the “ultimate” authority on U.S. politics. Then again, is anyone? *smile*
NOTE to Readers: Check out Terry’s blog, it’s an interesting and humorous read. Definitely has my endorsement.
3. Mike Young wrote on July 24th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Do you then think that a man should be allowed to marry his dog? After all, he might really love that dog, and you can’t prove the dog doesn’t love the man.
By the way, in the cultures where young girls under 15 married, they were usually given away by their parents. They didn’t choose to marry of their own free will.
You’re probably right about gay marriage being eventually banned almost everywhere in the U.S. Even MA seems to have a ballot initiative coming up to see if gay marriage should be allowed. MA is very liberal, but if someone is putting it on the ballot, they must think it has a shot at passing.