|
Archive main page |
click here for a bigger sunsetOne small voice in the proud tradition of FreeBlogging*Wednesday, February 25, 2004posted by gbarto at 4:48 AM:While I dither quite a bit about gay marriage a few posts down, I'm not nearly so anguished about the Federal Marriage Amendment, which I consider a bad idea through and through.1. It's an enormous expansion of the federal government into the social sphere. 2. It's an enormous enroachment upon the powers of the states to run their own affairs. 3. Like Prohibition and the Flag Burning Amendment (thankfully never adopted), its intent is to contract, not expand, the choices available to a free citizenry (beyond choices about how they run their states, mentioned in no. 2). While there is nothing explicitly supporting this as a criterion for good vs. bad amendments, we did adopt the Constitution to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity," not to assure the uniform power of the federal government. Passing amendments that say "no" to citizens, not the government's power over them, seems contradictory to the spirit of the Preamble and the Declaration. 4. Its conception is flawed: The FMA supporters imply that the institution of marriage cannot survive without this. Such an argument represents either a disheartening and misplaced lack of faith in that institution or a cynical willingness to alter our founding document to shore up the base. The first is cause for worry; the second is cause for real fear. 5. It's excessive: If we pass an Amendment every time San Francisco goes a little off the rails, we'll be doing nothing but passing amendments. Let's spend a little more time preparing democracy in Iraq, please, and put aside our quarreling with San Francisco until we really have time for such matters. We don't right now. * * *
French Elections, 1st round
|