It Must Be Reelection Season

You can always tell when politicians are up for reelection. "How?" you ask. They always seem to drag the same tired and/or dead horses out for their biennial beatings. This go-round: it will be, once again, the "Gay Marriage Amendment" horse. After doing a quick search on the internet for this topic, you'll never guess when the majority of the page hits date to... That's right: early to mid 2004. Right before the last election. Both the conservatives and the liberals wanted to get this one positioned, so they could come out at election time and say, "I voted (for/against) the GMA (Gay Marriage Amendment). Therefore, you must vote for me." And, being conditioned much like Pavlov's dogs, we'll do it. Politicians must stare in wild amazement at how easily they can whip the whole of society up into a mouth-frothing frenzy. We truly are lemmings.

 

So, this year when you cast your vote on who gets to next hold our leash, remember that our fragile society really does hang on who votes for and who votes against the GMA. If men are allowed to marry men and women are allowed to marry women, why... it'll be Y2K all over again!

 

So, what's the language of this proposed amendment? Here you go:

Article--

 

SECTION 1. This article may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment' .

 

SECTION 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'.

Is it me, or wouldn't this proposed amendment seem out of place in our constitution? I mean, the original purpose of our constitution was to restrict or otherwise restrain government. Now government is using our constitution against the people. Odd...

 

Anyway, the President came out (bad choice of words?) of hiding long enough to explain to us,

"In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives. And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people, not by the courts."

Hahahahaha! I can't believe he said that! "In a free society, the people choose." I wonder what "free society" he's thinking about? A free society wouldn't try to pass an amendment that dictates to the whole what the definition of marriage is. A free society wouldn't try to enforce that definition with the might (and guns) of government. (BTW, a free society wouldn't require individuals to get marriage licenses, either.)

 

Back to the amendment. from this article, we read that, "Parliamentary maneuvers were likely to sink the amendment for the year. Senate procedure requires two days of debate before the 100-member Senate decides -- 60 votes are required -- whether to consider the amendment on an up-or-down vote." In other words, after a good sound beating, they'll put this horse back in it's stall for another couple of years. But, look for it to reappear in 2008 for another beating.

 

Do you have to worry about an amendment protecting marriage? Not unless they accidentally kill the horse.