attack the author. They are intended to attack Bush. Thank you. You
may now stop paying attention.
> 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.
While I'm glad that his intent != success, I personally feel like it's a
case of attempted murder != murder -- that is, intent is enough.
> 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.
Civil unions are the way to go, because "separate but equal" has always
worked well in the past.
> 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.
As a programmer, I just have to ask: Unless there is a good reason, why
artificially create boundary cases? Isn't it just easier to deal with
all couples in a similar manner?
Okay. That was my political grump for the month. I'm going back under
my rock, now.
--BenD
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
