If you’re going to argue a point, for or against, you’re always better off knowing exactly what you’re fighting … or championing. A little more than a day (or two) after I made a rather rambling post addressing the hot topic of marriage and its defense, the POTUS decided to ignite the first M-80 of his presidential campaign. He used such power-words like “fundamental” and “civilization” and politi-phrases like “national importance” and “stability of society” — had it not been for the subject matter, I would’ve been impressed with his vocabulary. Under the guise of preserving the sanctity of tradition, the President asked that Congress swiftly pass an amendment to the Constitution that would clearly define and restrict the institution of marriage. While the word “ban” never left his mouth — feel free to check the transcript yourself — the fear is that such an amendment would reduce non-heterosexual citizens to a second-class status. But is this fear rational?
Well, it depends on the wording of the amendment in question. While no specific resolution was mentioned, the likely document is H.J. RES. 56, first introduced in June of 2003. Sponsored by Rep Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), the verbiage is brief:
“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
A sister resolution (S.J. RES. 26) was brought into the Senate last November by Sen Wayne Allard, also of Colorado, and also a Republican. The wording is the same.
Does this constitute a ban? Quite possibly, but more than that, it oversteps the boundaries between the legislative and judicial branches of our government. How? The word “construed” is the culprit. By disallowing further analysis and deliberation on the topic of marriage, this amendment would bind the hands of judges nationwide, forever rendering the entire matter ineligible for discussion. Of course, this is just what President Bush wants. Whatever scorn remains in his throat after speaking of Al Qaida and generic terrorism, he reserves for what he calls “activist judges” — a term that has been picked up like a crisp twenty by rightwing hotheads and neocon commentators.
Furthermore, this amendment’s scope would overreach the individual constitutions of every state in the Union, further affecting/diminishing another hot topic – states’ rights. This is most perplexing, as the Republican party has traditionally upheld states’ rights. In fact, the GOP has always been very proud of their commitment to less-government-as-better-government. But then, nothing in politics is running along a historical track these days. More like a crazy train…
While you’re mulling that over, you might be interested to know who is co-sponsoring this proposed amendment. Since I live in Georgia, the following gentlemen are particularly cause for concern:
- Rep Jack Kingston (R-GA-1st)
- Rep Johnny Isakson (R-GA-6th)
- Rep Mac Collins (R-GA-8th)
- Rep Charlie Norwood (R-GA-9th)
- Rep Nathan Deal (R-GA-10th)
- Rep Phil Gingrey (R-GA-11th)
- Rep Max Burns (R-GA-12th)
- Senator Zell Miller (D-GA)
Really, Zell. Isn’t it time you put your donkey lapel pin in an envelope and sent it back to the DNC? Come on. You’re practically growing an elephant’s trunk… or just a longer nose, much like Pinnochio. Anyway. If any of my fellow Georgians are wondering just who among these are serving you, take a look at the Congressional District Map. I make no guarantees that you’ll be able to decipher your representative through all of the gerrymandering, but do try. And once you find them, send them an email. After all, they’re working for you. In addition to the Georgia contingent, the joint resolution has seven more Senate cosponsors, and 98 cosponsors in the House.
Every one of them has a homepage. Every one of them says that they’d love to hear from you.
