Here is the link:
http://www.babounakis.com.
Here is the text of the post. Pay attention to the quotes at the end.
2/25 President Bush's Version of the 3/5's Compromise
On February 24th, in a spirit befitting of the 3/5's compromise, the President of the United States announced his support for a constitutional amendment that would not only ban "gay marriage" but would also preclude any court from enforcing state law's with respect to civil unions, if any state decided to enact such a law.
Last night on Larry King, Ms. Musgrave said that she opposes civil unions, though she believed that the language of her amendment would allow a legislature to create a civil unions law, but prevent a court from creating it by judicial order.
Here is the amendment:
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or 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."
After reading and re-reading the amendment, I do disagree with the claim of the amendment proponents and the President that civil unions would be allowed. Re-read the second sentence because that is the tricky part.
Effectively, the second sentence says this: No law whether Federal or state nor any constitution shall be construed to require that marital status or THE LEGAL INCIDENTS THEREOF (this is what civil unions offer) be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
This constitutional amendment would preclude any state court from enforcing a civil union law passed by the state legislature. Instead, if the state passed a civil unions law, it would become nothing more than another Bush administration voluntary compliance scheme.
Because no court can interpret any "law" or "constitution" to require that the legal incidents of marriage to be conferred upon unmarried couples, every civil union law becomes unenforceable and therefore useless. Again, the trick is in the wording of the second sentence.
Here is a practical example: State X passes a civil unions law mandating health insurance benefits for same sex spouses of employees. Person A goes to His company and asks for benefits for his same sex spouse. If the company says no, the employee has no recourse under the state civil unions law because, again, a court is not allowed to construe any state law to require the granting of the legal incidents of marriage upon unmarried couples.
The last time that the United States Constitution was sullied with discriminatory language, it took a war to get that language removed. Tuesday's proposal discriminates against gays as it excludes them from enjoying a right that we heterosexuals enjoy.
The 3/5's compromise, which defined slaves as 3/5's of a person for purposes of counting them in the census discriminated against African Americans as it, among other devices, excluded them from the benefit of full participation in society.
Does the President understand that his desire to amend the Constitution with this proposal is comparable to the 3/5's compromise which was the last bit of language in the Constitution that excluded a whole class of people from participation in all facets of society? Is this what he really wants to add to the Constitution?
The other unfavorable comparison is to the slew of laws banning interracial marriage which were finally struck down in Loving vs. Virginia in 1967.
Last night, the President gave a speech focusing on contrasting his positions with the positions of two of the Democratic candidates for President.
Here is the President:
"The American people will decide between two visions of government: a government that encourages ownership and opportunity and responsibility, or a government that takes your money and makes your choices."
One day the President claims to be a proponent of opportunity. The next, he pushes a constitutional amendment to deny equal opportunity for gay couples.
Here is the President again:
The Democratic candidates "seem to be against every idea that gives Americans more authority and more choices and more control over their own lives."
One day the President criticizes Democrats for seeking to exercise greater "authority" and "control" over the lives of the American people. And the next day, he proposes a constitutional amendment that deprives states of any decision-making capacity on this issue, an amendment deprives gays of "authority," "choice," and "control" to make one of life's greatest decisions.
More from the President:
"This nation is prosperous and strong, yet we need to remember the sources of America's greatness. We're strong because we love freedom. America has a special charge to keep because we are freedom's home and defender."
Keep this in mind as President Bush pushes a constitutional amendment to deprive gay people of freedom. If were are the home of freedom and its greatest defender, why does the President seek to restrict the freedom of Americans.
The greatest line from the President' speech is this:
"I've got news for them: America has gone beyond that way of thinking, and we're not going back."
You surely correct Mr. President. This nation has moved well beyond the idea of constitutionally imposed discrimination. The Fourteenth Amendment enshrined the idea of equal protection in the Constitution.
Maybe, Mr. President, you should re-read that amendment and read the horrible history that produced that amendment. Maybe that will teach you that we do not need to sully our Constitution merely to make your "base" happy.