The Squamata Report: Marriage Protection Amendment

Monday, June 05, 2006

Marriage Protection Amendment

On Jan. 24th 2005 Sen.Wayne Allard proposed a Senate Joint Resolution (to amend the Constitution) to define marriage as between a man and a woman. This week the Senate is finally debating the matter. Many say that they do not expect this to pass.

If the Senate does pass it, the House will have to agree and it must be ratified by three-quarters of the states. The President has no vote in this kind of Join Resolution.

Some Liberals have advanced the notion that Republicans set this debate up to draw our attention away from the war and Illegal Immigration, because they are sinking in the polls. Some point to the vote on the 'Flag Burning bill' set for debate next week as further evidence of a conspirasy.
I say .... you guessed it.....HOGWASH !!!!

S. J. Res. 1: Marriage Protection Amendment was scheduled for debate 17 months ago. Even if the Republicans were magically able to manipulate the calendar; they also would need to be clairvoyant enough to know they would need the boost in support at this date and time.

Did they know we would be debating illegal immigration and place this debate strategically? If you believe that you do not know how Congress works and you really need to un plug from the wacko mainstream media.
In my oppinion the amendment will not pass and homosexuals in America will consider it a win (although it is not), a press for counter legislation will follow and what Conservatives have fought to stop will come to pass. That is my prediction. If I'm right, the Republican's imaginary ploy will have backfired and American culturewill suffer for it.
As for next week's Flag bill, I'll let you know how I feel about it soon.
As if you didn't already know.

1 Comments:

David said...: Of course it should not have passed. Not because its intent was not (at least in many of its supporters minds) a good thing.

Of course homosexuals and many Mass Media Podpeople, Loony Leftists and their ilk will view this as a victory for "their side' of the marriage issue.

But. The Amendment is unecessary. Were states to simply insist the feds keep their noses outa state business (I think me of the Ninth Amendment) and insist that the feds not improperly apply the Fourteenth Amendment; were legislatures able to stand up,to judges and tell 'em to shut up and sit down instead of legislating from the bench, then efforts to amend the Constitution in ways that further the erosion of GENUINE Constitutional rights would not be needed.

BTW, if anyone told the Framers that any word or words in the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) assured homosexuals they had a right to marry each other, or even that the Federal government had a responsibility (and the power) to intrude in that area (or in education or in any religious matter whatsoever or any number of other areas that the feds nose into today), they'd have called that person a liar or fool.

A "Marriage Amendment" is bad Constitutional law. All that is needed is for state legislators 9and executives) to do as their electorate indicates and tell the feds to go suck on a sour lemon. Then, homosexual "marriages" might happen in one or two states, but the unions would not be recognized elsewhere... and such law would likely not stand.

But shoving more and more federal controls onto people is not the way to go.

(BTW, I feel much the same way about the so-called "school prayer" amendment, and many other moves by so-called conservatives to use the feds to correct ills they should handle on the local or state level. School prayer? Cut off the schools from the Fedferal teat, first. Then tell the feds to go suck on a lemon. etc.); 6/09/2006