Wednesday, February 25, 2004
GAY MARRIAGE AMENDMENT
First of all, let's get this straight. All marriage is same sex
marriage...the same sex, over and over and over again. It's a long tedious meal
with dessert at the beginning.
Well, it's on now. Republicans can pretty well write off votes from
gays and lesbians in this year's presidential election. Yes, there are
quite a few economically independent gays and lesbians who don't like high
taxes, who don't like government interference in their businesses and lives, and
who were prepared to vote for Bush in November ... but that was then, this is
now.
George Bush is now officially backing an amendment to our Constitution which
would ban gay marriage. More specifically, Bush wants any recognition of
same-sex marriages to be forbidden by law, but he does want to leave state
legislatures free to recognize some sort of legal civil union or domestic
partnership that would bring with it most of the legal rights that go to married
couples.
I believe that this move by George Bush is purely political. He hopes that
the additional votes he will get from some Americans for his support of a
Constitutional amendment will surpass the votes he will lose from conservative
gays and lesbians.
There is really no reason beyond political considerations for an anti-gay
marriage amendment. I've been trying for weeks to get listeners to explain
just how their marriages will be adversely affected by the presence of
"married" gays and lesbians in their community. Thus far I've
had no good examples of potential damage.
My prediction? The amendment will never happen. It will be a
political issue for this election, then it will fade. The courts in
California will finally rule that gay marriages are not legally valid until the
California legislature takes steps to make them so. One unfortunate
backlash from this episode will be a hardening of feelings against gays and
lesbians on the part of many Americans. Much has been accomplished in
recent years in erasing the irrational hatred and aversion that many breeders
have against homosexuals. Much of this progress is going to be erased by
this ill-conceived push for marriage rights.
In the meantime, Democrats are ducking for cover .... they say that they
oppose gay marriage, but they won't back a Constitutional amendment that would
accomplish that. John Edwards, for instance, says "What this
indicates is that the president is not in touch with what's going on in people's
lives. If he really wants to help married couples what he should be doing
is helping them with all their economic problems, their health care problems
.... "
That's the best John Edwards can come up with? Well ... at least he
does put forth the Democratic agenda well. The federal government was
established to help families with their economic and health care problems,
right? And don't forget their child care problems, their retirement
problems, their problems with their bosses, their lawn care problems, their golf
swing problems, their fertility problems, their what-to-watch-on-TV problems,
and virtually every little bump in the road of life that causes them any
concerns. Right?
FUN WITH TED KENNEDY
And what does the Vile Senator from Massachusetts have to say about Bush's
idea for an amendment banning gay marriage?
"It's about politics ... an attempt to drive a wedge between one
group of citizens and the rest of the country solely for partisan
advantage."
Well, I guess Ted Kennedy, one of the greatest Democratic class warfare
generals, would know all about driving wedges between groups of citizens, if not
about driving cars over bridges.
AND WHAT ABOUT THIS QUESTION OF "EQUAL RIGHTS?"
I've been saying for years that there is no equal protection problem with our
current marriage laws. As usual, though, someone comes along and says it
better. Blogger Amy
Ridenour says:
"Every American of legal age, excluding some
deemed mentally incompetent to fulfill a contract, is treated the same by our
marriage laws. We can only marry if we are unmarried, and if the person we
wish to marry is eligible to marry. We can only marry a person if that person
wants to marry us back. And, yes, we must marry someone of the opposite sex.
Equal rules. Equal protection. Anyone who wants to follow the rules of
marriage can marry. Anyone who doesn't, doesn't have to."
Simple as that, my friends.
BUT ... AS LONG AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION
There have only been 27 amendments to our Constitution. The last
basically said that the congress couldn't raise its own pay without an
intervening election. Now there was a Constitutional amendment that
recognized the essential truth about today's breed of politicians. Our
founding fathers didn't put that in the original because they couldn't think in
terms of elected officials staging raids on the taxpayers funds to the extent
that they do today.
The American people have shown that they don't want to trivialize our
Constitution with an endless succession of amendments. The unnecessary
so-called Equal Rights Amendment was turned away, and amendments like one
banning flag burning have never even made it off the launching pad.
Americans aren't going to get behind this gay marriage thing either.
But .. since the subject has been broached, here are a few ideas for
Constitutional amendments that I think would be a grand idea.
First on my list is an amendment to repeal an
amendment.
The 17th Amendment, to be more specific. I believe the argument can be
made that the 17th Amendment has done more to promote the growth of federal
government than any other action in our country's history. The 17th
Amendment, ratified in 1913, provided for the popular election of U.S.
Senators. Our original Constitution created a system whereby the people of
the United States were represented in Washington by the members of the House of
Representatives, while the state governments were represented by Senators.
Each state legislature would appoint two people to serve staggered terms in the
Senate. The people had their voice in Washington, and so did the
States. Tell me, do you think that the federal government would have
successfully usurped so many powers from State governments? Would the U.S.
Congress have placed so many unfunded mandates on the backs of the states?
Our founding fathers (the politically correct term is now "framers")
felt that in times of peace 90% of all government should emanate from state and
local levels, and only 5% from the federal level. The growth of the
federal sector at the expense of local power can be traced back to the
ratification of the 17th Amendment. Repeal it. Return the power to
the local governments.
Second .. The Bricker Amendment.
The Bricker Amendment was introduced into the Senate in 1952. Some
Americans actually think that our Constitution is the supreme law of the
land. That may not be so. There have been federal court rulings
which state that treaties duly ratified by the Senate can have a force under law
that is superior to that of our Constitution. Some argue that this
application is severely limited, others say that today's activist courts could
expand this doctrine to the point that our Constitution takes second place in
the "law of the land" list to treaties. Some
examples? How about the Kyoto treaty? To what extent would our
economic liberties be violated if Kyoto became the supreme law of the
land?
OK ... back to the Bricker Amendment. Here it is, in its entirety:
- Section 1. A provision of a treaty which conflicts with this Constitution
shall not be of any force or effect.
- Section 2. A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United
States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of
treaty.
- Section 3. Congress shall have power to regulate all executive and other
agreements with any foreign power or international organization. All such
agreements shall be subject to the limitations imposed on treaties by this
article.
- Section 4. The congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
Does anyone see a real problem with this? How could anyone really
object to an amendment that cements our Constitution in place as the supreme law
of the land? Well ... the Bricker Amendment was defeated in the U.S.
Senate by a vote of 42-50. Republicans for ... Democrats against.
An amendment limiting the government's right to
seize private property
It is an abomination that our Supreme Court has now given the green light to
government to seize the private property of citizens without any due process at
all. If you are found in an airport, a bus terminal, on an interstate
highway ... virtually anywhere ... with a wad of cash in your pocket, the police
can simply take the cash and send you on your way. In this case the
government assumes that you have committed a crime, administers punishment, and
sends you packing. How about a Constitutional amendment to protect your
property against government seizure without due process?
Eminent domain abuse
Again, thanks to a ruling from the Supremes, governments across the country
can now take your real estate from you and hand it over to another private
citizen or developer simply because the government believes that the new owner
will pay more in property taxes than you do. We need a Constitutional
amendment to clearly define "public use" and set strong new limits on
eminent domain.
Now ... how many of you would put an amendment banning gay marriage above
those items?
GOOD QUOTE ...
You spend enough time cruising the internet and sooner or later the law of
averages means that you're going to come up with some pretty good
quotations. Many conservatives have long been a bit more than just a
little upset over Orrin Hatch's "roll over and play dead" act as
chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. How about this one from
"The Spoons Experience" (whatever that might be):
"Orrin Hatch is less likely to bark
at a Democrat than to wet himself at the sight of one."
Beautiful.
KERRY WINS THREE MORE STATES
Although not exactly delegate-rich, Senator John Kerry picked up 3 more wins
yesterday, capturing Idaho, Hawaii and Utah. Unless John Edwards wins a couple
states next week on 'Super Tuesday' (March 2nd,) he's done and it will be Bush,
Kerry and Nader. Kind of boring for the Democratic nominee to be chosen so
early, don't you think? Oh well, it was their idea.
Anyway, Kerry's Senate record continues to get scrutiny. An Associated Press
analysis shows that John Kerry has a long record of backing cuts to a number of
military aircraft and missile defense programs. We covered much of this in the
Nuze yesterday ... but here's your refresher course: In the early
90's, he voted to limit funding for the B-2 stealth bomber, eventually voting to
eliminate it outright in 1992. Kerry also voted to cut $3 to $4 billion from the
defense bill in 1991-92. And again in 1995 and 1996, he voted against
major defense spending and authorization bills. He voted against the missile
defense system, and voted against spending on the F-16 and F15 fighter aircraft.
These are facts, this is his record. Are you Democrats sure this is your guy?
Now Kerry says "no one is going to question my commitment to the defense
of our nation." Actually Senator, we are because you have done
everything in your power to weaken it.
MORE EVIDENCE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION IGNORED TERRORISM
We all know that President Clinton turned down an offer from the Sudan to
hand over Osama Bin Laden outright. As if that weren't enough, there's more news
that the Clinton administration looked the other way when it came to terrorists.
Gee...thanks for nothing, Bill.
The federal commission investigating the 9/11 attacks is looking at whether
the United States failed to track one of the hijackers after obtaining his
information more than two years before September 11, 2001.
The New York Times quoted German intelligence officials who said that in
March of 1999 they gave the CIA the name and phone number of Marwan al-Shehhi,
and asked America to track him. The Germans never heard back from the U.S. until
after 9/11. How nice...just a little late, don't you think?
Our Washington correspondent Jamie Dupree says that the Germans only provided
a first name, and the phone number was in the Middle East. If so ..
admittedly that didn't give our spooks much to go on ... but we've done great
things with less information in the past.
Turns out Al-Shehhi was a member of the al-Qaida cell in Hamburg, Germany and
was the roommate of 9/11 mastermind Mohammed Atta. Ah-Shehhi flew United
Airlines Flight 175 into the south tower of the World Trade Center. Had this
terrorist been properly tracked, his cell may have been exposed and al-Qaida's
cell interrupted.
It's impossible to know what might or might not have happened. One fact,
however, remains crystal clear. The last time the Democrats occupied the
White House and were in charge of the war on terror, they failed us
miserably. Are you prepared to let that happen again?
APOLOGY NOT ENOUGH; NEA NOW CALLING FOR PAIGE'S FIRING
We told you yesterday about the comments Secretary of Education Rod Paige
made to the nation's governors where he called the National Education
Association "a terrorist organization." He apologized yesterday, but
of course that's never enough.
Yesterday Reg Weaver, official crybaby pantywaist and head of the NEA,
stopped short of saying Paige should step down, and instead said what he wanted
was the Bush administration to spend more money on the "No Child Left
Behind" act. Well now, the NEA has changed its tune. This should come as no
surprise at all, since nothing is never enough for the liberals when you don't
agree with him.
Now Weaver is asking that President Bush "express his regret to the
nation's educators and demand that Secretary Paige step down." Paige says
he is not leaving, and President Bush says his job is safe. Good.
Rod Paige is being raked over the coals for one reason and one reason only:
because he spoke the truth. And sometimes the truth hurts.
READING ASSIGNMENTS
Must read ... From Stanley Kurtz of National Review Online. "Can't
Afford to Lose."
Kerry thinks that by virtue of his four months in Vietnam the Bush campaign
should be estopped (from my legal years) from mentioning his voting record on
national security matters. The
Washington Times thinks otherwise.
So many people are worried about poor software engineers who are losing their
jobs to India ... but nobody seems to care about the 7,000
candy manufacturing jobs lost in Chicago ... lost to government interference
in the marketplace.
Thomas
Sowell's random thoughts are usually a good deal deeper than our most cogent
attempts. Here's his latest.
Is investigating Kerry's service during Vietnam fair game? Hell yes it
is, especially after he has made it a point of mentioning that service at
virtually every campaign appearance. This
Joel Mowbray piece makes interesting reading on Kerry's Vietnam past.
And
Tony Blankley doesn't agree with those people who believe that George Bush's
National Guard record, or John Kerry's 1970's anti-war statements, should not be
considered by the voters in 2004.
So how come President Bush's poll numbers are down so much? Dick
Morris explains why, and what the president needs to do to win re-election.
So what do we really know about John Edwards? This
column explains his past as a trial lawyer, and some cases that may come
back to haunt him.
This
is an excellent op-ed piece in USA Today about the need to privatize Social
Security. Did you know that the program is $26 trillion in debt? A must-read.
It's official: we can all rest easy...Al
Sharpton is headed to Haiti to run up the room service bills and try and
broker a peace agreement.
Walter
E. Williams details the devastating impact of congressional
"miracles" on our industries. More reasons to fight protectionist
quotas and tariffs.
Paul
Greenberg talks about Mel Gibson's 'Passion of Christ' movie, which opens
today. He says people shouldn't write about a movie until they've seen it.
Imagine that.
The media is throwing the term 'anti-Semitism' around a lot these days. George
Will explains what it has come to mean amongst the intellectuals.
It's
Oscar time, and Michelle Malkin talks about the Hollywood left's obsession
with the death penalty. It seems the movie industry has a thing for death row
inmates, always conveniently forgetting their victims.
Looks like movie violence is perfectly acceptable to the media, except when
it comes to Mel Gibson's 'The Passion of the Christ.' Yet
another double-standard that should surprise no one.
A
father spanked his daughter after learning she had disrupted class. Good for
him, right? Wrong; school officials called police.
In
1999, the Defense Intelligence Agency prepared a 160-page report forecasting
the threats to our national security through the year 2020. Read this and
then see if the economy and health care are still your most important issues
this election year. | 
Search Boortz.com
