> to shove their religious biases down my throat. And for all
> intents and purposes this proposed amendment does exactly
> that. Moreover it contradicts the equal protection clause as
> well. Welcome to the latest in the Republican wedge issues.
While I'll agree that there are some serious considerations and issues to
look at with this proposal. It should also be pointed out that this is
simply an announcement of intent, not a guarantee of passage. When it comes
to changing the US Constitution there is a whole slew of hoops that the
amendment has to run through before it is enacted.
The problem that is happening right now is the fact that we have a Full
Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution (Article 4) that means that what
is recognized as a marriage in one state must be accepted as a marriage (for
*legal* purposes) in all states. The other thing that I heard during his
announcement was that he suggested that states come up with some alternative
to marriage (civil unions, support of same sex couples in taxing and
benefits) without redefining marriage.
We're not talking about whether or not two men or two women should have the
ability to commit themselves to each other before God, family and friends.
It is a question of whether or not the Government must see these same sex
couples at the same level as they do heterosexual couples when it comes to
legal issues.
Hatton
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.572 / Virus Database: 362 - Release Date: 1/27/2004
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
