James J. Kilpatrick: An Indecent Proposal

uexpress.com ^ | 2/25/04 | James J. Kilpatrick

[blitzgig]

AN INDECENT PROPOSAL By James J. Kilpatrick

Let me quote from the text of a wretched proposal. It reads: "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives, that the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

"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, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

Incredibly, this miserably drafted resolution has attracted the sponsorship of 10 senators and more than a hundred members of the House. I am told it was drafted by an ad hoc group speaking through Robert Bork. Hard to believe. Bork is an intelligent fellow, a former judge, a clear writer. He could not have composed this gummy sludge. "Legal incidents!" A committee must have done it.

Look. The first sentence is clear enough for everyday construction. The second sentence is a furious tangle of neithers and nors. It defies comprehension. It says, I believe, that the Constitution shall not be construed "to require" that marital status be conferred upon unmarried couples "or groups." Duh? Who ever suggested such a construction or such a requirement?

This is baffling. If such a construction is not "required," the construction must be permissible. But if the amendment is asserting only that it is permissible for a legislative body to confer marital status on unmarried heterosexual couples, what is the point? We are back to the old Common Law. How could such a proposition qualify for constitutional amendment?

The resolution speaks of unmarried "groups." What groups? Polygamists? If so, surely a ragtag remnant of a lonesome band should not be the subject of constitutional amendment.

The flaws in this obnoxious resolution are not merely syntactic or semantic. The proposed amendment -- if I understand the ugly text -- is mean-spirited, bigoted, uncharitable. It spits in the face of freedom.

As a matter of law, marriage is a civil procedure. Government issues the marriage license and records its exercise. Government regulates divorce and child support. Government adjusts taxes by marital status. As such, laws dealing with marriage are largely the responsibility of states and localities. This is a sphere in which Congress has a limited orbit.

To a great many Americans, marriage is also -- even primarily -- a religious experience. It is a sacrament, dating back to Cana in John 2:1. Whom God has put together, let no man tear asunder. All of that. But if we're dealing with a sacrament, where does Congress derive a power to intervene? The Constitution speaks three times to issues of faith. It says that no religious test shall ever be required for public office; it says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and it dates our basic law from "the Year of Our Lord 1787."

Well, apart from matters of civil law or religious belief, it is said that homosexual "marriage" is a threat to heterosexual marriage -- and stable marriage is a value that government has an obligation to protect. Are husbands and wives seriously endangered by lesbians and gays? What hokum! Threats to the institution of marriage lie in adultery, in financial stress, in unwanted children, in presumptuous in-laws, in a thousand other situations that flesh is heir to. The lesbian couple down the block is absolutely irrelevant.

The last time I asked, 68 resolutions of constitutional amendment were pending in the House and Senate. Some of them are duplicates. That spavined old war horse, the Equal Rights for Women amendment, is still limping around the track. There are worthless amendments on flag desecration, term limitation, balanced budgets and the line-item veto. There is a proposal to reconstitute the House in the event half the members are killed in a disaster. It might be prudent to explore that one.

The worst of the sorry lot is the Marriage Amendment. It tramples upon the sound theory that amendments should deal only with public affairs -- with a tax on incomes, with a poll tax, most recently with the right of women and 18-year-olds to vote. The pending resolution breaks with established practice. It violates what Justice Brandeis long ago defined as "the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men -- the right to be left alone."

What should be done with the Marriage Amendment? Kill it. Kill it now.

[Casloy]

I agree. It's what I was trying to say before.

[Stallone]

Marriage is between one man and one woman.

All else is the domain of perverts, queers, Democrats and the Unholy, and shall not be considered marriage.


....


Works for me.

[rhombus]

This is an "issue" designed by the vast left wing conspiracy to distract us from what should be the number one issue of the election: national security. Why does anyone think that these new civil rights were "discovered" this year by judges in Massachusetts. Yes it's judicial activism and it's wrong. Despite the majority of Americans who oppose homosexual marriage, I expect they will NOT support such an amendment to the Constitution. We will spend way too much time discussing the existence of the "gay gene", the meaning of "loving relationships" rather than how best to protect ourselves.

The War on Terror is really a war against religious intolerance. The Dems are weak on national defense and instead of discussing what needs to be done about islamic religious intolerance, the Dems will turn this issue on us and Republicans will be portrayed as being religious intolerants over homosexual marriage and writing so-called bigotry into the Constitution. Beware this issue! It distracts from the need to wake Americans up over the fact that there are Islamofascists out there practicing religious intolerance who want to kill us. Since we have not been attacked on the homeleand for 3 years (thank you Dubya) the American public is now less concerned about terrorism. They need to wake up! An amendment to the Constitution is a bad issue to take into an election. Rather I would put it off and let Massachusetts, California and New Mexico continue to make fools of themselves. This will provide a far better demonstration of the short-sighted inanity of their positions. At the very least a Constitutional amendment should be put off until after the election.

[beckysueb]

Sounds good to me, too. Pretty much covers it. I don't think liberal judges can find a loophole in this.

[beckysueb]

I don't think these people are just playing around. There is a real power struggle going on here. It has to be stopped. If GWB doesn't stop it, it will get out of control.

[Grut]

You forgot to add: "What God has joined, let no man put asunder" and therefore divorce is prohibited. Right?

[leadpenny]

I'm not sure there should be an amendment to the Constitution or not. But, if left to the individual States, it will end up in the US Supreme Court and an eventual decision will be just as binding as an amendment. The first time a couple of lesbians or other homosexuals, who have been married in, say, California, move to Alabama and are denied a joint filing for their State Income Tax, the case can't stop until it gets to the Supreme Court. It could happen in a hundred other scenarios, but it will happen.

[samtheman]

There are worthless amendments on flag desecration, term limitation, balanced budgets and the line-item veto.

Wrong. Line-item veto deserves an amendment. It would vastly improve the way our government works.

[rhombus]

Patience my friend. We can't do much if we lose the next election.

[Ronin]

Is this amendment mean-spirited? Maybe, but so what? In case anyone has missed the polls, the vast majority of citizens in this great Republic of ours oppose gay marriage and are willing to vote against it.

Proponents of gay marriage know this of course. But they have also learned all to well that they can get what they want by other means than the ballot box.

What is at issue here is nothing less than the principle of majority rule, democracy, republican government, or whatever the heck else you want to call it.

I am all for state rights, and I believe that if we could trust the judiciary to LEAVE this issue to the states, most people would be content to let the states decide.

Alas, in this era of judicial activism, that is a no go. The leftists will use any tool, the "full faith and credit clause", the "commerce clause" and any other tool they can use to ratchet their agenda ever forward, even in the face of almost universal condemnation.

The courts need to be reined in. They need to be slapped upside the head in a clear and unmistakable manner. They are NOT the high priests of our Republic and need to stop acting like it.

If it takes a marriage amendment to make that point clear to them, I for one, am willing to let it happen.

[Stallone]

I am in favor of one exception.

Grut, you should be allowed to marry your dachsund.

It is time to make the final commitment, and stop banging out of wedlock.

[tsomer]

What I'd like to know is:

If same sex marriage is ok, why not polygamy?

Why not arranged marriages, such as the kind used to skirt our immigration laws?

[uncbob]

A Constitutional amendment to save marriage from activist judges is not going to work for the reason that activist judges are screwing up a lot more than just marraige and you can't have constitutional amendmendments ad nauseum for every situation

You got to impeach the damn judges and recall the legislators

[thoughtomator]

It's only a matter of time before someone attempts to marry a pack of cigarettes... and who's to say their dedication is any less than that of any other "couple"? Heck, the average smoker smokes longer than the average spouse is married.

[tsomer]

But there are only 20 smokes to a pack.

Maybe they should marry a carton, or a brand.