I din't want this one to sneak by beneath the GAY-DAR
|
Posted By: prometheus Posted on: Apr. 4, 2006 at 9:03 PM  3 Comments
|
3.2 / 5
Based on 4 ratings.
|
Print
Email Friend
Add to Favorites
del.icio.us
Digg It!
Slashdot It!
Front page of the AZ newspaper today. Kyle senate panel urges constitutional amendment against gay marriages! My goodness, is this Still the United states of America? Or somewhere along the line did we slip into not quite so ALL- AMERICAN! Is that right-wing amendment for only poor Gays or does it include the wealthy ones also? And then what after that? (un)Constitutional amendments against African-Americans? Chinese Americans? Bald or short people? Maybe one where obese people with low IQ's can't marry? I mean where will they draw the line? If they ever do? Are not gay people fully American citizens like the rest of us? Don't they fight and die in American wars? Will they be allowed to vote or maybe they will all be herded into giant camps and kept there as long as silver-spoons senator Kyle feels necessary. Really bad things can sneak up on a good nation of people when those good people do nothing! Do you think the millions of Russians Stalin exterminated (for no reason) expected it, or saw it coming? Or the millions in Cambodia or Uganda or any of the myriad places on our planet where unchecked evil is still running wild! Recent history and current events WARN us of the horrid possibilities that could surface right here in the U.S. Of A. If we open our eyes in time, we mightl see that it is already here. I cut and pasted the article from today's front page. I didn't want it to sneak by, but I'll bet Kyle did. see first comment below!
Anonymous commenting has been disabled, you must login to comment on articles.
Signup for an accountComments:
|
Apr. 4, 2006 at 10:08:52 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| Prom, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America) limits government, not the individual. Amendments eleven through twenty-seven further define the individual’s rights and the limits on government, with the exception of the eighteenth amendment, prohibition. The eighteenth amendment is the only amendment that went against the general intent of the Amendments to our Constitution, which was to protect the individual from the government. That amendment was foisted on Americans by a zealous self-righteous minority. That amendment, repealed by the twenty-first amendment, didn’t last long because it subverted the general intent of the Constitutional Amendments to further individual liberty. It went against the grain of our American ideal. This foolishness about amending the Constitution of the United States to restrict individual liberty goes against the grain. Fortunately the eighteenth amendment did not result in a bad precedent, but we don’t want to take the chance again. Anyone that advocates amending our Constitution to restrict others liberties is a damned fool, or a political opportunist, or both! It seems to me that marriage is a double barreled shotgun (no pun intended). The civil barrel is the states’ bailiwick, a contractual instrument to sort out economic issues (taxes, property division, dependency and relationship for insurance purposes, etc.) and responsibility for children (custody and such). The other barrel is spiritual, and is a layer on top of the civil contract. That layer is the proper bailiwick of the church. Each level should be defined and dealt with by the appropriate institution. This matter of marriage is a state level matter, and a church matter. Federal government butt out!! Don’t amend my constitution to prohibit individual rights and impose your narrow belief system on We the People. Remember the eighteenth amendment, and its fate. Make no mistake. I speak not for or against homosexual marriage. I speak for our precious Constitution and Constitutional amendments! See more at [link:www.law.emory.edu] |
||
|
Apr. 5, 2006 at 07:09:55 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
| I must agree. I certainly do not believe that gay marriage should be allowed, however, amending the constitution is not the way to go about it. The states should be handleing this, just like abortion, it too is a state right, and education. The government has made too many enroads into the states rights. |
||
Billy House
Republic Washington Bureau
Apr. 4, 2006 12:00 AM
WASHINGTON - Congress must act to send a constitutional marriage amendment to the states or risk that the courts will rule in favor of same-sex marriage nationwide, asserts a new report from a key Senate committee headed by Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
"The greatest fallacy of the same-sex marriage debate is the well-meaning but naive belief that Congress need do nothing and that the American people will sort the question out on the state level," according to the paper Why a Marriage Amendment Is Necessary by the Senate Republican Policy Committee.
"The only way to ensure that the American people, rather than judges, decide this fundamental question about the future of marriage in America is to offer them the opportunity to consider and ratify a constitutional amendment through their state legislatures." advertisement
The 16-page report by the committee, which does research and advances the views of the Senate's GOP majority, comes as the office of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Monday that he has scheduled a vote on the Marriage Protection Act for early June. That measure says, "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."
The report lays out in advance the arguments that can be expected from Frist, Kyl and other senators when the issue is debated two months from now. But two years ago, the Senate could not even muster a simple majority, let alone the 60 votes needed, to permit a straight up or down vote on a similar amendment.
Kyl, who is seeking his third term this fall, could not be reached for comment Monday.
Meanwhile, proponents of placing a state constitutional amendment on the Arizona ballot this fall warned their supporters that the measure could fail to make the ballot because of a lack of signatures.
Massachusetts is the only state that has redefined marriage to include same-sex couples. But the committee's paper warns that several other states could follow suit this year.
California, Connecticut, Iowa, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma and Washington face active lawsuits challenging their marriage laws, according to the committee report. State Supreme Courts in New Jersey, Washington and New York could decide same-sex marriage cases this year, the paper states.
The paper also says that the near-term tactical goal of gay-marriage advocates "is not national cohesion but national fragmentation of marriage definitions" because "the result will be confusion and chaos that cannot long endure."
The paper predicts that eventually, questions regarding the federal definition of marriage and interstate recognition of same-sex marriages will go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Nothing in the Constitution prohibits same-sex marriage, and in our current constitutional system, the various applications of marriage law are typically left to the states," the paper says. "Consequently, it would be exceedingly unlikely for the Supreme Court to invalidate same-sex marriages."
But it is tough to change the U.S. Constitution.
Any amendment must be approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate and ratified by the legislatures of 38 states.
"We are truly sick of being used and misused by the right for political gain. This is again a replay of the right-wing effort to use homophobia to frighten people and to demonize lesbians and gay people," said Roberta Sklar, communications director for the Washington, D.C.-based National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
"We're sick of it and look forward to it ending. This is an election-year maneuver. And frankly, we think the American public is getting sick and tired of it, too."
In Arizona, gay activist Neil Schneider of Phoenix echoed Sklar's comments, saying the sentiment outlined by Kyl's committee, along with the Senate GOP plans to resurrect a vote on the marriage amendment in June, is an election-year strategy. He said it "makes my blood boil because they are using myself as a gay person as a political pawn for votes."
"Senator Kyl has some sound policy position in other areas: tax policy and immigration policy," said Schneider, who owns his own video production company. "But he's completely off base with the American public on this issue.
"When did Americans start writing discrimination and hatred into the Constitution against one class of Americans?"
He pointed to an e-mail sent last week by the Center for Arizona Policy warning that it has been difficult to get enough signatures or registered voters to qualify an amendment for the November ballot that would protect that existing definition of marriage in the state, which does not include same-sex marriages.
In an interview, Cathi Herrod, interim president and director of policy for the center, said she appreciated the national leadership Kyl has shown on the issue.
But she confirmed that the coalition has been having a hard time collecting the 183,917 valid signatures required by July 6 to qualify for the fall ballot.
Reach the reporter at billy.
house@arizonarepublic.com or 1-(202)-906-8136.
Report Abuse