Tuesday, December 16, 2003

Undermining the SanctimonySanctity of Marriage

pResident Bush said Tuesday that he could support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

I'm shocked.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court last month struck down that state's ban on same-sex marriage, saying it is unconstitutional and giving state lawmakers six months to craft a way for gay couples to wed.

Bush has condemned the ruling before, citing his support for a federal definition of marriage as a solely man-woman union. On Tuesday, he criticized it as "a very activist court in making the decision it made."

"The court, I thought, overreached its bounds as a court," Bush said. "It did the job of the Legislature."
So, it's the job of the Legislature to determine the constitutionality of a given law? Gosh, if that were the case you'd think maybe they'd deal with it while they were writing it in the first place.

Previously, though Bush has said he would support whatever is "legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage," he and his advisers have shied away from specifically endorsing a constitutional amendment asserting that definition.

But on Tuesday, the president waded deeper into the topic, saying state rulings such as the one in Massachusetts and a couple of other states "undermine the sanctity of marriage" and could mean that "we may need a constitutional amendment."

"If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that," he said. "The position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state or at the state level."
First of all, I'm a little perplexed regarding: 1) why defending the sanctity of marriage would be legally necessary in the first place and 2) the distinction between embraced "by the state" and "at the state level". However, the latter is immaterial I guess since any state-embraced "legal arrangements" that counter the strictly man/woman definition would presumably be nullified by a federal amendment. I do agree with one thing, I think a constitutional amendment may be necessary, one that requires presidential candidates to have a triple-digit I.Q. Intolerant?


Post a Comment

<< Home