Update II (06/06/06): Did Lawrence v. Texas get the “gay marriage” ball rolling?
Update (3:02 p.m.): Ann Coulter will appear on Pundit Review Radio this Sunday, and she’ll probably discuss homosexual “marriage,” illegal “immigration,” and her new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism.
Listen live on WRKO in Boston.
I’ve added Ann’s book to my Amazon Wish List (hint, hint…)
Tomorrow morning I’ll participate in a bloggers conference call with Senator Rick Santorum, who supports the Federal Marriage Amendment.
————————————————————————————————————————–
Now that George Bush and his co-president Vicente Fox of Mexico have got their America-destroying “immigration” plan working its way through a “deballed” Senate, Bush is trying to throw his base dogs a bone with a homosexual “marriage” ban amendment to the Constitution.
Bush has the wherewithal to fight to change the freakin’ Constitution, yet when it comes to stopping illegal aliens from crossing the border, he has no fight in him to execute laws already on the books? OK.
Politicians are so transparent. The midterm elections are quickly approaching (can you believe 2006 is half over?), and Bush is trying to appease angry conservatives and Christians by pushing this amendment. It’s an empty and meaningless gesture because the thing will never be ratified.
I no longer support or defend Bush, and I don’t support a “gay marriage ban” amendment to the Constitution. One doesn’t have anything to do with the other, however. My support for such an amendment waned and weakened a couple of years ago even when I thought Bush loved this country. In The Nationalization of Marriage, I argued against it on procedural and “states rights” grounds, and reminded people that Bill “Slick Willie” Clinton already managed to pass marriage-protecting legislation. Ironic, isn’t it? 
From the post:
Some states can (and will) refuse to vote on the FMA or reject it outright. If 13 states do either of those things, the amendment is dead. The second way to amend the Constitution is if two-thirds of the states call for a Convention and the FMA is ratified by three-fourths of the states. Good luck with all that. On the other hand, an amendment would prevent unaccountable judges from forcing new laws on the rest of us and rights never envisioned by the Constitution.
Another reason I don’t support the FMA is because marriage laws should be determined by the states. We already have The Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton, which preserves states’ rights and goes far enough in protecting traditional marriage by allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex “marriages†performed by other states. Former Congressman Robert Barr wrote an interesting op-ed about this issue.
I suspect many disappointed conservatives will rally around the president on this issue. While Bush attempts to sound conservative, remember that his pro-Mexico, anti-America immigration scheme will cause more damage to this great country than a million homosexuals “marrying.” The influx of millions more poorly educated, poor English-speaking, non-assimilating Third World (more importantly, Third World-retaining) aliens is more of a threat to the average American than the spectacle of men standing at an altar…although it’s difficult to decide which is more disgusting.
If you’re reading this blog, King George, this is what I think of you and your proposed amendment:
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Sources:
- Gay Marriage Ban Short of Votes in Senate
- Gay Marriage to the Rescue!
- Gay marriage creates new conflicts for neighbors
- Protecting marriage: The battle dawns
- Politics of the Altar
- Bush expected to jump-start debate over same-sex marriage
Have you blogged about this topic? Trackback, and I’ll link to your post.
Bloggers: Fellow Christian Randy Thomas and I disagree on the marriage amendment but agree on almost everything else. I appreciate his work with Exodus International. Once caught up in the homosexual lifestyle, Randy travels and shares his testimony about the healing power of Christ.
Glenn Reynolds, who supports “gay marriage,” says:
There are times when I’ve found Bush’s transparent lack of enthusiasm for this measure [the proposed ban] comforting, but of course it just makes it more obviously pandering when they trot it out at this point. Or maybe I should say “attempted pandering,” since if LaShawn’s reaction is typical it’s not a very successful effort.
The Moderate Voice, Scott Ott’s proposed amendment wouldn’t pass in 1,000 lifetimes, but I like it. 
, Opposing Arguments, Inoperable Terran, The Dragon and the Phoenix (cool blog name!), The Reid Report, Thoughts from a lack of sleep (another good one), Adam’s Blog, Ron’s Random Ruminations, Cagey Mind, The Political Pit Bull, All Things Beautiful…
So long as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) holds, there’s no need for a Constitutional amendment that would directly interfere in the affairs of the states. It does appear as though the DOMA will hold, and if it doesn’t, only then is it time to consider the possibility of amending the Constitution. To create a preemptive amendment to deal with a potential court case seems to be overkill to me.
Homosexual blogger and “marriage” supporter Andrew Sullivan, with whom I had a brief e-mail exchange on this issue last year, writes:
By spear-heading the FMA again, Bush has alienated a vast swathe of socially inclusive suburbanites, the veep’s daughter, every gay person and many of their families, libertarians, constitutional conservatives and principled federalists. But he’s won over the fire-breathers, right? It turns out: Not even them any more. When you’ve lost LaShawn Barber, things aren’t looking too good.
Don’t stand too close to the flames!
Say Anything, an atheist, says:
I oppose a marriage amendment to the Constitution, mostly because I think that marriage is something that should be decided by the voters/legislators of the various states. I don’t want judges deciding the issue for everyone, but nor do I want to deny the citizens of California or Massachusettes their right to allow or deny gay marriage depending upon the will of the voters.
