"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman." Thus states the Marriage Protection Amendment to the US Constitution.
Nineteen states already have such a law. But the courts continue to overturn those state laws or find ways around them. The only avenue left open to the citizens of the US, to save the family in America, is through a constitutional amendment. No court can overturn that. The Senate took up debate of the proposed amendment (above) this week.
It is doomed to failure.
67 votes will be required in the US Senate for the Marriage Protection Amendment to carry… plus, 2/3rds of the vote in the House. Finally, 3/4ths of the states must ratify it. The vote of the states is fairly assured. The problem is, it will never get to the states.
Before I go any farther, let me assure you that I DO agree with the Marriage Protection Amendment. But I also believe in facing reality. The reality is this: this proposed amendment to the US Constitution will go down to failure.
Now, everybody knows this. What we are seeing is another kabuki dance played out in hopes of energizing the conservative base of the Republican Party. Problem is… the conservative base “has left the building”!
This charade is just the latest scheme (both political parties use) to fire up lazy voters as an election approaches. My party, the Republican Party, is in serious trouble with the voters, in particular their conservative base (of which, I’m a member). They lost me with their amnesty ladened Senate bill on “illegal immigration”. They lost the bulk of the Conservative base with that move… and their hardheadedness, and stubbornness, and refusal to listen to the voice of their constituents, has caused a mini revolt within the party.
In all likelihood, Republicans will maintain control of both houses of the Congress this November. Normally 80%of the incumbents, up for re-election are, in fact, re-elected. I DO expect to see the majority’s numbers decreased, substantially, however.
Back to the Marriage Protection Amendment: I am embarrassed that my party would, once again, insult my intelligence with this cute parlor trick of attempting to draw my attention, and that of my fellow conservatives, away from a decidedly un-conservative move (The Senate’s illegal immigration amnesty bill) to a decidedly conservative move, the Marriage Protection Amendment.
It won’t work.
We already know the Democrat Party supports gay marriage. We already know conservative Republicans do not. And here’s the catch in all this: There is no conservative leadership in Congress. As a result, both parties know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this proposed amendment will never leave the Halls of Congress.
The fact that the Conservative voter already KNOWS this simply reinforces the theory that the public is no longer the pawn of the politicians and the media. We now have our own source of information and we are using it to the hilt. With a few keystrokes on the ole keyboard here, I can have the text of any proposed legislation before Congress. I can get a record of which Congressperson, and which Senator, voted… and the way they voted… on any bill. I no longer have to depend on the Mainstream Media or the press secretaries of the politicians. Anyone with a computer, and access to the Internet can, quite easily, have all the information he, or she, can process... unfiltered by the left-leaning press. Knowledge is power.
After a couple more elections and the politicians become fully aware of just how much we know, these days, maybe, just maybe, they will begin to listen more to the voice of the people who sent them there in the first place.
But, I doubt it. It is more likely they will go after the Internet!
Longstreet
2 comments:
Well I do agree with one thing you said - we do have information more at our fingertips than at anytime in history and that is a very democratic thing to have.
Perhaps in earlier times this would have helped reduce the duration of the debate over whether the Earth is flat or whether lighting is from Zeus or a meteorological phenomenon. And perhaps science and peer review from the American Psychological Association, the American Medical association, and the World Health Organization will convince some conservatives that homosexuality is a normal variant in the human condition and worthy, not inherently immoral, and deserving of the same civil rights that all heterosexuals enjoy.
I guess I just believe in freedom, for everyone then Longstreet. I don't believe in pushing my views on someonelse like abortion for example, I feel it is wrong I wouldn't ever get one (even if I were able) but that's just me. I wouldn't support a law stating all women must have atleast 1 so why on earth would I support a law that said no woman could? Same on the marriage thing, or gun ownership, I wouldn't support a law stating all citizens must have one, neither would you, nor would I support one stating that none could ow a fire arm either. I guess I am the only person who truly wants a less intrusive government and more freedom for all. Too bad this kind of thinking doesn't catch on.
Post a Comment