Robert recently blogged an opinion about the Gay Marriage amendment proposal. Ol' GW found a nice lightning rod with that one. I'm somewhat ambivalent about the actual subject. The problem is the dual nature of marriage (at least in the US). On one hand, it's an affirmation of a bond between two people (traditionally between a man and woman), on the other hand, it's an important legal document that gives the two people rights and privileges that are denied to others in other types of arrangements (i.e., incorporation, partnerships, civil unions, etc.). But it's not the issue of Gay Marriage that has me so damned mad that I think really bad thoughts about the president. Here's my opinion plain and simple:
Keep your fucking hands off the Constutution.
I can't think of any better way to put it. The Constitution isn't something you casually change for some “biblical moral imperative“ (witness Article 18). But I suppose President's motto is, “If we can't pass laws, we'll add amendments to the constitution.“ C'mon guys. You call yourselves conservatives?
Amendments to the Constitution are perfectly acceptable if they happen withing the context of what the Constitution was for: “..to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..” I'm utterly unconvinced that an attempt to apply religiously-based dogma into the Constitution is either wise or necessary, nor does the proposed amendment do a damn thing for promoting the general welfare. And let's not forget the last time we proposed an amendment (prior to Article 18) that was backed up by verse upon verse in the bible:
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
Did you forget about that one? It was proposed in 1861 in order to guarantee a state's right to have legal slavery, and frankly, had it been proposed sooner (early 1800's for instance), it probably would have passed because slavery was a “God given institution” to the states that permitted it (ok, that's kind of stretching it, since states that did/didn't permit slavery was about 50/50 in the US in the early 1800's, if I remember my history correctly. If not, just remember I'm a computer scientist, not a historian).
Anyway, regardless of your moral convictions about the whole “gay marriage” issue, you should think really, really hard before stapling something like that to the Constitution. It's not something to be taken lightly, and believe me, the gay marriage issue falls FAR below the threshold for something that merits a change to the Constitution (take the test. Put down the bible and justify banning gay marriage without referring to words like “values“, “tradition“, or “institution“). Even more disturbing is that it is the first amendment, since the one I mentioned above, that has the sole purpose of _denying_ civil rights to a group of U.S. citizens (ok, I may be wrong there again...I'm sure a historian will correct me if I am).
OK, I'm going to get off my soapbox now. Somebody else can get on and rant at will.
P.S. -- If you want to respond to my post in a civil manner, feel free to post in the comments section. I reserve the right to delete any whiny-assed comments that I think are rude, vulgar, or off-topic. Don't like those rules? Start your own blog and say whatever you please.