Marriage amendment stalls in the Senate

Just barely.

Can we now get back to more pressing issues now, please?

Prior:

7 Responses to "Marriage amendment stalls in the Senate"

blogagog says:

June 7, 2006 at 5:44 pm

I understand that raising this issue at this particular time is considered pandering to the base. But why won’t he pander to us by raising the secure border issue or ANWR?

Heck, I NEED some pandering to.
blogagog says:

June 7, 2006 at 6:31 pm

Or, how about pandering to me by proposing cost-cutting measures for congress?

Nope, they went with the tremendously important must-be-resolved-right-away issue of flagburning first. *Sigh*. I think I’m becoming bitter
andrew says:

June 7, 2006 at 6:49 pm

“But why won’t he pander to us by raising the secure border issue or ANWR?

ANWR is great pander. You think there’s much substance to that?
blogagog says:

June 7, 2006 at 8:34 pm

A vote on opening ANWR and NOTHING else would at least give us an idea who not to vote for in November. Just like the gay marriage vote did for people who are virulently pro or anti gay marriage. I’m sure gay-marriage and abortion and flag-burning are important to some people, but not to me. I’m against them all, but don’t really care about them when compared to:

Government overspending
Expanding oil drilling and researching alternatives
Securing the border
Stopping judges from making laws
Ending corruption and lobbying in Washington(yes, ending lobbying)

I could list dozens more before I reached the flag-burning issue on my preferential government to-do list.

If they are pandering, they are not good at it.
Marshall Art says:

June 8, 2006 at 12:36 am

blogagog,

#4 on your list is exactly what the protect marriage amendment would help to resolve. It does no good to give this issue over to the states if some judge is going to overturn the legislation on some lame psuedo-constitutional crapola.

This, along with the issue of abortion, is indeed a pressing issue if the moral character of this country means anything. Along with taking lib judges out of the equation, it will stop a trend that will result in the total disintegration of the institution of marriage. There will be no way that any conceivable group of people could be refused as the same arguments put forth by the homo/les forces would apply as well for the new groups. This cannot be disputed.
blogagog says:

June 8, 2006 at 11:06 am

I disagree with you, but not your goal. To pass a law to fix a single law created by the judicial branch is not an effective way of solving the problem. The best way is to replace the law-creating judges with judges that apply the law as it stands. Otherwise, a single judge could just strike the law down. I don’t have any qualms with the rate at which this is occurring though.

Making an amendment requires 60% of congress and 75% of states to approve it. You could not get this many people to agree on “murder is wrong”, much less gay marriage. It’s a waste of time to dwell on it. The only good thing that came of it is we know which way each Senator votes on the issue, and if it’s an important issue to you, you can vote accordingly. The issue is too low on my list to sway my vote one way or another, as is flag-burning, and sadly, abortion.
Marshall Art says:

June 9, 2006 at 1:33 am

Replacing judges is the best way on paper, but only an amendment prevents their action with any permanence. Aside from the fact that someone else will always have a different opinion on what “better judge” means exactly, at some point there will be judges that have a different opinion and therefore make different decisions that will have a lasting impact on our society, it’s character and it’s course, for good or ill. And the rate at which a judge will strike down a law is irrelevant when considering that it only takes one “wrong” decision and we’re forever changed.

Those percentages were required for other amendments, were they not? Thus, agreement can be had. The redefining of marriage to include same sex relationships will, without a doubt, have nasty ramifications with far more lasting impact than people are willing to admit. Roe v Wade is a classic example of a bad decision having lasting negative effects. Like Roe, the decision is wrested from the hands of the voters.

I will say, however, that unlike marriage and abortion, two issues that speak of our national character, I don’t find the flag-burning issue to be important enough to amend the constitution to prevent. In fact, not prohibiting flag burning serves the public good. Anytime someone burns the flag during a protest, it says to many Americans, “Hey! Look at me! I’m an asshole!” And it’s a good thing when our legal system allows for such self-identification. A tee-shirt with that statement so emblazoned would be better, but either way, you know who they are and can avoid or mock them.

Comments are closed.