...how ANGRY that imbecile makes me. His remarks today on a constitutional ban are just so ridiculous.
The worst thing about the gay marriage "debate" is, like the letter to the Times' editor to which I referred yesterday, there are absolutely ZERO reasons, ethically AND constitutionally, to "support" a constitutional ban on gay marriage. The only reasons propoenents are citing are religious. And this country was founded on the separation of church and state, so they tell us - even though it's never explicitly written "separation of church and state" in the Constitution - or any of the amendments.
What the First Amendment DOES say, though, is this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.... (The statement in the constitution itself about religion is in Article IV Clause 3: "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States")
Lo and behold, not only would Bush and his cronies have to draft a NEW amendment to the Constitution, they would, literally, have to REDRAFT the FIRST AMENDMENT as well!!! Because the only reason that Bush has to "defend" marriage is that marriage, as Bush defines it, is "the most fundamental institution of civilization." But it's not. It is a fundamental institution of religion. (Can I cite, as evidence here, the fact that if you google History of marriage the #1 site to be listed is, not very suprisingly, The Catholic Encyclopedia? Even the internet knows!)
There is a major difference between civilization and religion which needs to be explained to Mr. President.
And look at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." Therefore, by Bush's own admission that the Defense of Marriage Act includes a stipulation "declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage," does this not in itself violate Article IV? Does that make the DMA invalid? I couldn't begin to tell you that, but obviously it needs to be stricken.
There is no place for law based in fear. There is no place for government principled on a lack of tolerance or a lack of understanding.
It's funny, I can always find a quote from some showtune or other to illustrate most any point, and the one I'm going to give you to close this blog entry is from "Beauty and the Beast." Even Disney understands tolerance better than Bush. Because this line is sung by an angry, crazy mob:
"We don't like what we don't understand, in fact it scares us."
What's the best fix for that? Learn more and become able to understand it. Don't redraft that Constitution of the United States simply because you're afraid of something.
Posted by Jon at February 24, 2004 12:31 PM | TrackBack