I grew up reading comic books wanting to be a superhero. Those who speak the truth are heroes, anything less is a lie.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

The Bachmann Amendment: Smoke and Mirrors

I've been married forever (30+ yrs). During that time I lived in states that recognize gay marriages and states that don't. But never was my own marriage endangered by gay marriages. Not once! In fact, I'd like to see one that was? Yes marriages have a tough time (there's a reason why so many fail) but I willing to bet it isn't because Paul married John.

If an elected official or candidate feels that the 'sanctity of marriage is in jeopardy' 'endangered' or 'threatened', or it's 'integrity' is at risk... then start by removing the issues that cause divorces. I believe the economy would be high on the list followed by lack of services to young working families such as affordable day care and adequate education and transportation. Those are the real threats to marriages.

Don't want a gay marriage? Don't have one. Remember separation of church and government? Let churches decide, but governments should treat all the same and equal under the law. The Bachmann amendment is smoke and mirrors meant to elicit a scapegoat for all the daily wrongs within our society that affect marriages while disenfranchising a whole class of Americans citizens. Substitute the words Black, White, Latino, Native, Jewish... for Gay and read the amendment again. Then let's call this what it is...Discrimination, meanness, small mindedness, unjustified and specific targeting against a group of Americans. It's simply unacceptable.

I quoted John Lennon a few days ago and his words come to mind again "I'm sick and tired of hearing things from uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocrites - All I want is the truth - Just gimme some truth"

St Cloud Times Online Debate
What is your stand on the state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman?
Larry Haws:
Current Minnesota law does not allow marriage between same sex couples. We do not need to reinforce the law with a constitutional amendments. I believe that the language already codified in state law is strong enough.
Sue Ek:
I support the constitutional amendment and would vote YES to allow voters in Saint Cloud and Haven Township the opportunity to decide if THEY believe the state constitution should recognize marriage as a union between one man and one woman. This is a key difference between me and my opponent.

From
Lloydletta's Nooz and Commentary :
Actually another key difference seems to be that Haws lives in St Cloud and Ek lives in St Paul.

St Cloud Senate Candidates: What is your stand on the state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman?
Dan Becker
I will vote in favor of this. I do not support changing the definition of marriage between a man and a woman. I think if the gay community had supported the civil union concept during the Clinton years, this would have been done. Let me also say I do not like to amend the constitution often because it takes away from the integrity of it.

Tarryl Clark:
It is currently against the law in Minnesota for gays to marry. As I stated in Q5, IÂ’m opposed to amending the state constitution unless thereÂ’s a real need to. That standard applies here. Much of the last two years have been wasted on legislative debate on this issue, mainly by politicians who hope to push voter turnout one way or another in the next election. ThatÂ’s not the purpose of the constitutional amendment process. If it were the case that MinnesotaÂ’s law, which has been on the books for years, were overturned, then the question could be put to the voters.

Dan Ochsner:
I lieve the sanctity of marriage is in jeopardy. I will fight the Senate DFL MajorityÂ’s position against the DOMA amendment and will work hard to allow Minnesotans the right to vote to permanently protect and define marriage.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

There would be one good thing about a "my marriage isn't strong enough that it may be affected by any and all outside forces, so I think to make myself feel better about all of the divorces that are in result of everything but gay marriage I'll mess with the State Constitution" amendment, would be that the people pushing for it won't be able to blame any gay couple for their divorce, due to all of the time they spend hating one group of people over loving their better half.

SHAME ON THEM!

truthsurfer said...

While true, it's not something I would want or look fwd to enacting. We talking fundamental changes to our constitution and the way a class of citizeny will be treated by law. It's nothing short of 'gay bashing' only the weapon being used is the law.