| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| A Ban We Don't (Yet) Need |
| 2006-06-09 |
| By Charles Krauthammer On Wednesday, the Senate fell 18 votes short of the two-thirds majority required to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The mainstream media joined Sen. Edward Kennedy in calling the entire debate a distraction from the nation's business and a wedge with which to divide Americans. Since the main business of Congress is to devise ever more ingenious ways (earmarked and non-earmarked) to waste taxpayers' money, any distraction from the main business is welcome. As for dividing Americans, who came up with the idea of radically altering the most ancient of all social institutions in the first place? Until the last few years, every civilization known to man has defined marriage as between people of opposite sex. To charge with "divisiveness'' those who would do nothing more than resist a radical overturning of that norm is a sign of either gross partisanship or serious dimwittedness. |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #6 Lefties and Communists are deficit-intensive Conservatives - for the time being, the ALternatists are just PC "useful idiots" for the imposition of ever larger Governmentism-Socialism, Stratification = Centralist Absolutism etc. in the Amer mainstream. Once America is defeated and under OWG, the rights of the Alternatists, etal. will be taken away in the name of proper Socialist accounting and State planning, i.e. prim-and-proper Socialist SECULAR [ATHEIST]MORALITY/ETHICS. Remember that, worse coming to worse, the Left is its own biggest [self] justification for SOcilaism and Totalitarianism, i.e. DON'T TRUST ANYONE FOR ANYTHING, ESPEC AND ABOVE ALL THEMSELVES. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-06-09 23:31 |
| #5 Virtue is necessary for a nation to survive. Homosexual marriage is not virtuous. The legal problems it will create will eventually destroy the institution of marriage itself and open a Pandora's box of other problems (legal polygamy and polyamory, legal child abuse, etc.) Legal homosexual marriage will result in school texts that promote and and recruit for the homosexual life style. Homosexual marriage will also result in discrimination against Christians and others who believe the practice of homosexuality is immoral. The way most law scools train lawyers today to understand law and the Constitution, homosexual marriage is inevitable, sooner or latter, unless we amend the Constitution of the US. We may win for a time in many states, but the current world view of most lawyers is like the tide lapping against the side of a building on the beach - it will just keep comming back till it erodes the foundation of the building. In the short run an amendment is needed. In the long run, we need to revamp legal theory and legal education. Fighting homosexual marriage in the states will prove less effective than fighting slavery in the states. And, once there are a large number of homosexual marriages, it will be impossible to muster enough tough minded voters to put the genie back in the bottle - the news media will pull out all the stops to make people sorry for them. It is best to stop homosexaul marriage now. Too bad the Senate seems unwilling to do so. I hope people will be unwilling to vote for Senators who failed to support the amendment. |
| Posted by: D. R. M. 2006-06-09 13:48 |
| #4 How bout a little experiment: Put 100 married couples on an Island, provide them with food, shelter, etc. Put another 100 'married' homosexuals on another island, provide them with food, shelter, etc. Go back in 100 years and pick up the hundreds of people from the first island. Then go to the second Island and pick up the hund......wait....aw hell, nevermind. |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2006-06-09 12:33 |
| #3 Until the last few years, every civilization known to man has defined marriage as between people of opposite sex. 'Progressives' think that this old habit must be broken. How else can we progress to create new species by cross breeding with anything that will hold still. Those for a marriage amendment, just want to instill a little common ground under humanity. It would even be a great idea if we all spoke the same language, but God forbid. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-06-09 11:34 |
| #2 Don't worry Mr. Krauthammer. You've been wrong before. |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2006-06-09 10:15 |
| #1 The problem identified is just the symptom. The root undelying cause is a gross disconnect between the government [in this case the federal court system] and the people. Most citizens can read the Constitution. The ability to appeal to authority to rationalize court declarations that are clearly not found in or read in the literal passages of the Constitution does not stand. Nearly a hundred years ago, the people decided to make the Senate directly accountable to the people. It is long pass to do the same for the judiciary. The arguement for an 'independent' judiciary is an arguement for an aristocracy. George III was independent of the colonist. It's time the final branch of government be subject to the direct 'consent' of the govern. It's not like the Senatorial representatives have demonstated class or brains above that of the common citizenry to retain exclusive approval authority. |
| Posted by: Glaising Glaigum5899 2006-06-09 08:45 |