| this proposal wrong. Its denial of the entire damn preamble that stated, ...promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.... Not to mention it violates the 9th Amendment---The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. and most importantly the 10th--The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Federal Government has NO BUSINESS regulating marriage. That is a State issue. If this amendment passes, then that will set a precedent for the Feds to start regulating other aspects of marriage (marriage licenses, pre-marital counseling, pre-marital physicals, minimum age, marriage to illegal aliens, etc.)
As for "the sanctity of marriage is threatened" crap, what this all really boils down to is the denial of those legal rights that marriage gives to couples. Of course companies don't want to see gay couples married--suddenly they have to pay insurance benefits to spouses that didn't qualify before. Social Security beneftits and pension funds will suddenly have a whole new set of surviving spouses that will qualify for benefits. The government could no longer look the other way when Suzy's female companion of 25 years decides to leave her and now Suzy is stuck with a mortgage and other bills with no hope of a settlement in divorce court. The denial of benefits would be handy for both large and small business alike. Therefore the Feds should call it for what it is--a control over commerce.
On a side note, it wasn't that long ago that miscegenation was against the law. Until the US Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that interracial marriage was not illegal (Loving v. Virginia), the country was full of morally upstanding christians who believed that marriage of the mixed races would damage the sanctity of marriage and was ungodly--Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. We would never stand for such bullcrap now. Why should gay marriage be any different? |
