Tuesday, July 13, 2004


so the Washington Post wants to "Kill This Amendment."

The editors, who are liberal, argue 4 basic points.

First, the argument is that the Senate is just too busy to deal with this amendment when they know it won't pass. It is a bad idea

Funny, they say "Republicans believe it is one that can help President Bush, who has come out in favor of the amendment, and make life difficult for Sen. John F. Kerry (D), who not only opposes it but also hails from the very state -- Massachusetts -- whose highest court provoked the current showdown with a decision legalizing same-sex marriage."

John Kerry supports amending the Massachusetts' constitution to "ban gay marriage." He doesn't support doing the same thing for the nation. The main problem with the Post's argument here is that twofold. A) the editor's are SHOCKED that there is politics going on in an election year! What naivety. B) The editorial admits that it was the Massachusetts' court who put this issue on the national stage, NOT the Republicans. Are people opposed to what the court did and what other courts want to do supposed to just sit there and take it? HELL NO!

Second, the Post argues that marriage has always been a state issue. Before 1972 abortion had always been a state issue, too, so the Post must be against the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wadedecision that AMENDED THE CONSTITUTION, and took the issue away from the states. What about sodomy? Traditionally, this was a state issue. What about education? Traditional state issue. The liberal editors at the Washington Post as states' rightists? Yeah, right! The editiorial is full of shit.

Third, they argue that the DOMA already protects states from recognizing other states' decisions on marriage. The editiorial completely ignores the legal challenges that are currently taking place against the act. Sure the Congress can dictate what laws are to be given full faith and credit by the constitution, but that won't stop liberal activists from challenging it on Equal Protection grounds and liberal activist judges (who find marriage a discriminatory institution) from finding it unconstitutional because it discriminates against gays. Again, are opponents to wait until unaccountable courts have their say, and we the people are left with nothing - no recourse to the damage caused to marriage by judges who amend the constitution by fiat contrary to public opinion?

Finally, the Post argues that what this is "really all about" is preventing "people who love one another from marrying." Does that mean that the Post supports adult incestuous marriage, polygamy, beastiality, or group or self marriage, even it the people (or person) love each other? Of course not. This argument is the same old myth by liberals that all the Republicans/Conservatives want to do is hate on gays or (insert favored protected liberal group here). How can the Post argue that the liberal stands for hate and that it's favored presidential candidate and many Democrats, and some spineless Republicans, actually agree with what the amendment stands for - one man, one woman marriage - should not be forced to vote on the issue. That's what elected officials are for. Also, the Post argues that while that position stands for hate, people can legitimately disagree on a "non-problem." NON-PROBLEM! Its good to see that the Post has a sense of humor. I suppose if the assault on fundamental American and universal institutions is a non-problem, the assault on our shores by terrorists is a non-problem as well.