Skip to main content

To: State and Federal Legislatures

An acknowledged leader of the Evangelical Christian Right was interviewed on "Face the Nation" last year. Though a few of the topics allowed him to be a shill for the Bush Administration, he really only hit his stride when discussing the "culture war" du jour; Gay Marriage. Absolutely convinced in his belief that gay marriage meant the certain destruction of all civic, civil and religious order, this acknowledged leader invoked bizarre scenarios that opponents of inter-racial and inter-religious marriages wielded decades ago.

That was when I leaned forward a little.

If there is one thing I've learned over the years about ideologues, it is that they will unknowingly refute their core teachings to justify their True Belief. When Dick Cheney and his lesbian daughter were alluded to, this "man of the cloth" refused to even consider tempering his vitriol. When asked, if in a similar position as the vice president, would he accept his daughter's wishes to have the same equal rights as all other citizens? His response was to plead it was all a hypothetical. That he didn't know what he would do.

His refutation of a core teaching of his messiah was certainly obvious to me. Some might think it was a refutation of the teaching to, "love thine enemy." Others might think it was refuting the precept of forgiveness. It was certainly a refutation of both of those virtues. But an even more basic teaching was refuted; the simple act of empathy. This acknowledged Christian leader refused to have empathy for another human being.

It just didn't sound Christian. But it was True Belief, nonetheless.

The same arguments that lawfully denied members of different races and/or religions to marry decades ago, is being used in this current debate. It was patently wrong then, it is absolutely wrong now. The world did not come to an end when blacks married whites, when Jews married Catholics.

Even though this acknowledged Evangelical Christian leader might pray and hope for the world to end, it will not end when gays can legally marry.

So in a stern response to the effort by the Evangelical Christian Right and other True Believers for a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage, I have proposed a counter Amendment. One guaranteed to provide Due Process for all and one that will certainly raise a few eyebrows. For this attack on Gays by the Christian Right is an attack on all free thinkers, Gay or Staight.

It is one thing to marry in a Church. But when the Church says who can marry, then a Statement needs to be nailed to the "Wittenberg Gate."

Putting this Proposed Amendment in the hands of our Government Representatives would make a statement. It would loudly proclaim that no longer would the iron hand of Religious Zealotry strangle the throat of Freedom. It would state that a separation has existed between Church and State and that We The People, demand that it be honored.

Proposed:

A Constitutional Amendment to Ban Marriage to be ratified as:

The 28th Amendment.

Whereby the ages old institution of Marriage is couched in Religious Decree, and whereas the government of The United States of America in keeping with the Standards of a Separation of Church and State, therefore the government of The United States of America shall make no law recognizing a religious marriage as valid.

Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States to enter into a civil union shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex, race, national origin, religious affiliation or economic status.

Section 2.

All persons entered into a civil union in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are contractual entities of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of contractual entities of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person or contractual entity of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person or contractual entity within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 3.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

© 2006 by Justice Putnam
and Mechanisches-Strophe Verlagswesen

http://www.petitiononline.com/...

Originally posted to The Justice Department on Netroots Radio.com on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 12:02 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  lay it on thick (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rktect, Texas Blue Dot

    Nice work.  How often are amendments proposed that actually take away rights?  I think that this is the first time.

    "The worst administration since Caligula" - Rep. Dingell, Democrat - Mich. -9.50, -7.95

    by manoffire on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 12:06:06 AM PDT

  •  Bush Cowardice Post (0+ / 0-)

    I've got a piece up on how Bush has cast his lot with the worst of America, and what he support will ultimately mean to the FMA in the long run:

    Nettertainment: Coward

  •  If the fear is for the 'sanctity of marriage' (0+ / 0-)

    for the children's sake, to save the "institution" and society in general.
    .Better outlaw divorce while you're at it.

    Men like me don't breed well in captivity -8.88 -5.08

    by SecondComing on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 12:37:13 AM PDT

  •  brilliant suggestion (0+ / 0-)

    i am all for it.  seriously, why the fuck not.  the religious right couldn't even complain that much - God will still recognize their marriage, but there's no reason the state needs to recognize it in the term of marriage.  bravo!

    •  This is not, in fact, far-fetched (0+ / 0-)

      Many governments have taken the 'power' of marriage away from the churches and made it a civil matter. Sure, you can have a wedding in church on Saturday or Sunday, but the marriage dates from the time you show up at City Hall on Monday to register it, right along with all the other people registering transfers of deeds and other legal conveyances.

      Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction. - Pascal

      by Clem Yeobright on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 02:13:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just saw this interesting tidbit in WaPo... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clem Yeobright

    Mounties Set for Force's First Same-Sex Wedding

    TORONTO -- It promises to be a grand June wedding, two scarlet-coated officers of the famed Royal Canadian Mounted Police standing before a justice of the peace with an escort of similarly spiffy Mounties observing the nuptials on the eve of Canada Day, a national holiday.

    When the two constables become the first male Mounties to marry each other, the grumpiest witness-from-afar might well be Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The planned union of Jason Tree and David Connors in Nova Scotia on June 30 has cast a spotlight on Harper's pledge to his conservative backers to try to roll back same-sex marriage laws.

    Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. - A.J. Liebling

    by va dare on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 03:20:03 AM PDT

  •  To this agnostic (atheist wannabe)... (0+ / 0-)

    marriage is simply a civil union.
    As a woman going through a divorce and her boyfriend going through a divorce (hush we met a year after each of us separated)I feel right now in my present state of mind...pissed that I have to hire lawyers, fill out paperwork, lose vacation time, be away from my office all so I can ask the government permission to rid myself of a dangerous alcoholic.
    I would much rather have a symbolic ceremony with noooooo legal binds.  So my message to Gays....be careful what you wish for!  Cause eventually you are going to get it.

    Time For A Cool Change: Gore 2008

    by DemiGoddess on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 03:43:18 AM PDT

    •  While at this time in my life... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clem Yeobright

      I am not the biggest fan of legal unions...key word being legal...I support the right to same sex marriage and my above snarky and disrespectful (to the the sanctity of marriage)comment is a reflection of the pain that comes when a loving 20 year marriage dissolves/evolves into a painful divorce.  
      Please read my comments with a grain of salt.

      Time For A Cool Change: Gore 2008

      by DemiGoddess on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 04:25:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Civil Unions and... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DemiGoddess

        ... what I have called "Contractual Entities" are legal ways to mix assets, purhcase property jointly, sets a "liability standard" to raise children, etc.

        I understand your reticence about the "legal" aspect of "unions", but the Right Wing's "amendment" would nullify even "hetero civil unions." The ability to mix assets, purchase property, raise children; will be reserved for only those who marry in a church. That is a little mentioned provision in their "law."

        I have been married twice and I know the hurt of those dissolutions. I have to admit, when "same-sex" couples were married in SF last year, I wondered out loud,

        "Why would anyone risk jeopardizing a perfectly good relationship by getting married?"

        All kidding aside, to set a class or group of people outside the law, preventing due process and equal protection is wholly un-American.

        If only Love were enough to counter these restrictions; until then, we indeed require laws.

        •  WOW I had no clue... (0+ / 0-)
          will be reserved for only those who marry in a church

          I must have just skimmed all the info because I never realized this.  Thank you so much for pointing that out...I will do more research.

          Time For A Cool Change: Gore 2008

          by DemiGoddess on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 11:04:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site