.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Thursday, June 08, 2006

Norm: Defender of Marriage

Norm Coleman voted for cloture on the Federal Marriage Amendment. This divorced Senator obviously believes that the biggest threat to marriage today is not divorce, not long distance, not sharply differing work schedules, not infidelity, but teh gay. Nice.

Here's what Norm has to say on the subject, courtesy of a reader:
Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding the Marriage
Protection Amendment (S.J. Res. 1).

I support a constitutional amendment that would constitutionalize the
Defense of Marriage Act, ensuring that the citizens of a state, through
their legislature, have the right to define marriage as they see fit.
Moreover, I believe that state legislatures and citizens, not activist
judges, should determine what constitutes a marriage.

I have not, however, agreed to support the Marriage Protection Amendment
which was introduced on January 24, 2005, by Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO)
and referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary where it was
reported favorably by the Constitution Subcommittee on November 9, 2005.
This resolution proposes a constitutional amendment holding that only
marriages between men and women will be recognized as legal marriages in
the United States . In addition, this resolution would prohibit any
state or federal laws that seek to confer marital status to unmarried
couples or groups.

My two chief concerns about this particular resolution are that the
language may to go beyond the issue of defining marriage and interfere
with things such as employer-provided health care programs, for example
and that it substitutes the judgment that citizens of each state should
make through their legislatures.

Though we may agree at times and disagree at times, I value your advice
and will keep it in mind when the Senate returns to this topic.

I am humbled to serve as your Senator, and hope you will not hesitate to
contact me on any issue of concern to you or your family.
Huh? I sure would like to know how you can have an amendment that would put DOMA into the Constitution while ensuring that "the citizens of a state, through their legislature, have the right to define marriage as they see fit." If the amendment passes, that means that citizens can define marriage however they want as long as it is between a man and a women. Double nice.


At 10:01 PM, June 08, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

His reply isn't as bad as I expected.

If I recall DOMA rightly, it says that states are basically not obligated to recognize gay marriages performed in other states -- but it still leaves state legislatures to decide for themselves. I think it has been challenged and found constitutional, though, so enshrining it in a constitutional amendment would seem to be naked and vacuous pandering to the right.

Which is pretty much what we expect of Cheatin' Norm...


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home