Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (71789)	8/6/2003 11:00:22 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

The Post's lead editorial today is on the proposed constitutional amendment. IMO, any Republican who does not denounce that vigorously should burn in hell for the hipocracy. All other opinions on this subject I'm willing to listen to. The amendment proposal is way, way beyond the pale. Mr. Cheney's Wisdom Wednesday, August 6, 2003; Page A16 AT HIS NEWS conference last week, President Bush laudably insisted in response to a question about homosexuality that "it's very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country." But then he hinted that he might be considering support for a constitutional amendment to preclude gay marriage. "I believe in the sanctity of marriage," Mr. Bush said. "I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. And I think we ought to codify that one way or the other. And we've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that." As the Defense of Marriage Act -- signed by President Clinton -- already exists, Mr. Bush's comment was taken by many as an expression of interest in a constitutional amendment. Such an amendment, endorsed by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and supported by many other Republicans, would represent a radical step. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage for federal purposes in exactly the way Mr. Bush wishes, and it also makes clear that no state is obligated to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state. So Mr. Bush's preferred policy is codified. The constitutional amendment would define marriage as between a man and a woman not merely for federal purposes but for all purposes, preventing any state from allowing nontraditional marriages. There are two distinct issues here. One is whether gay couples should be able, if they so desire, to enjoy the protections of civil law afforded to married heterosexual couples with respect to inheritance, hospital visits and all the rest. Our view is that they should -- that extending such benefits can only help society while doing no conceivable harm to married heterosexuals. But there's another issue too, which has to do with federalism and the respect for states' rights, which in other spheres many conservatives tend to enshrine. A constitutional amendment defining marriage would federalize what has been among the most unquestioned of state responsibilities since the dawn of the American republic. The amendment specifies that marriage "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman," and it would preclude state or federal law from being "construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups." Certainly many Americans agree with Mr. Bush on his definition of marriage. But why should states with majorities that feel differently be barred from acting through their democratic processes? The Defense of Marriage Act already guarantees that any such decisions won't burden those states that do not choose to permit gay marriages. Conservatives have often lamented that federalizing traditional state policymaking preempts democratic dialogue within and among states on matters of social controversy. All too often, however, the conservative suspicion of unbridled federal power fades when that power can be deployed to squelch state-level experiments that offend conservative sensibilities. But who exactly is harmed if Massachusetts, New Jersey or some other state decides to take the plunge? As Vice President Cheney eloquently put it during the 2000 vice presidential debate, "I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area." © 2003 The Washington Post Company