Foot in mouth
Saying this was stupid, whether accurate or not. But the point remains: nobody is mounting a court challenge in Minnesota to legalize same-sex marriage, so the issue is moot. We don't need the amendment.
This has to be the coolest thing I have ever heard on the subject:
Jamie Raskin a law professor, when asked by a Maryland State Senator for his comments on the fact that the Bible says that marriage is between one man and one woman, said "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
Pwn3d!
posted by MN Politics Guru @ 17:52
2 Comments:
I see that you have adopted the accepted DFL response to DOMA, and that is that a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage isn't necessary because of our established and reaffirmed law already on the books. While that answer may seem to work politically, it is useless in the fight for equal rights. Are you honestly telling me that laws banning homosexual marriage will exist for fifty more years, let alone ten? I am 23 years old, and my generation overwhelmingly supports equal marriage rights. Believe me, whether it is the legislature or Congress reacting to a more advanced electorate or the state or Supreme Court acting on 14th Amendment grounds, it is only a matter of time my friend before DOMA is dead. Social conservatives are reacting to the societal push for equal rights, as always, and they eventually will lose, as always. These old traditionalists know this, hence the anxiety over the statute defining marriage. A constitutional amendment can bring the idea of permanance to their archaic idea of family and society, and there's the rub - the Democrats are right on this issue! Thirty years from now, when homophobia in public policy is viewed just as dispicably as Jim Crow laws were, the Republicans who fought equal rights will look ridiculous. Both DOMA as a constitutional amendment and a state law are unfiar and wrong. The sooner Democrats actually express their true, and correct, feelings on the subject, the sooner we can have justice. As a final point, the public knows where the Democrats truly stand on this issue.
Please post this.
No, I am unequivocably for equal rights. I have no problem with gay marriage, and I agree that in a short while it will exist in this country because the young have no problem with it. I was simply pointing out that one argument for the anti-gay marriage amendment is moot. That argument is not why I oppose the amendment.
Post a Comment
<< Home