Brownback Examines Marriage Amendment
Amendment would preserve traditional marriage
Thursday, October 20, 2005
WASHINGTON Â U.S. Senator Sam Brownback today chaired a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution to examine a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Just one year ago, the issue of marriage was center stage in the national political debate. Poll after poll showed strong support for preserving traditional marriage, and a majority of Americans supported a marriage amendment to the Constitution, said Brownback. ÂWhen the people spoke at the voting booth last November, they approved--by decisive majorities--every one of the 11 state amendments protecting traditional marriage.
The hearing was called to discuss popular support for protecting traditional marriage, judicial activism that threatens marriage, and the need for swift constitutional action to address this problem.
18 states have constitutional amendments protecting marriage as solely between a man and a woman, and 27 other states have statutes to protect traditional marriage.
Last April, a federal district judge overturned NebraskaÂs marriage amendment, which was passed by the people of Nebraska by 70 percent in 2001. Many legal scholars think it is just a matter of time before this activist phenomenon becomes the norm.
ÂMake no mistake: the threat to marriage is imminent and the time to act is now, said Brownback. ÂThe will of the American people is in danger of being thwarted by the will of an unaccountable, activist federal judiciary. In order to protect this vital institution, so central to the health and stability of families and society at large, we will have to define marriage. The only question is, who will do the defining? The people of the 50 states, as originally envisioned by the constitution, or judges forcing social change and bypassing the democratic process?Â
Witnesses at the hearing presented arguments for and against a constitutional amendment designed to prevent legal attempts to bypass the will of the people. Implications of the wording of the amendment were explored, as well as social consequences of judicially-imposed same sex marriage.
Brownback is a member of the Judiciary Committee and chairs the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights subcommittee.
I say, if Senator Brownback is so concerned about protecting "traditional marriage," then perhaps he should offer up some real protections:
1 -- Outlaw divorce!
If they are truly interested in protecting the institution, then we need to make it impossible to exit said institution. Only those who take the commitment seriously, and are willing to work through the good and the bad times should be allowed to marry. Removing the exit strategy would surely help to protect marriage!
2 -- All marriages are to be dissolved by the State if no children are BORN within two years.
One of the most common arguments used to "protect" "traditional marriage" revolves around the procreation and parenting of children. So, if we really want to protect "traditional marriage," then all non-traditional hetero-sexual versions have to go! To marry, you must MAKE babies! You can't adopt them. You can't foster children. You surely can't simply bring them with you from a previous relationship. You have to make kids! Traditional marriage is about procreation, so start screwing and popping out babies for the Fatherland.
3 -- "Traditional Marriage" often argues for a "traditional" family unit with a Mom & Dad. As such, all non-traditional families will be dissolved by the state so as to "protect" marriage.
They are forever saying that every child needs a female and a male parent. Anything different, or less than this is not effective parenting. Surely if this is true these units can't also be thought of as families? As such, all children without a married male and female parent, shall be stripped from the biological parents, and placed in "traditional" homes. This will ensure the proper role-models. Only with the proper family, grounded in a "traditional marriage" will these children be able to flourish and survive.
And those are just the starting points. If the repugnant-right and the religious-wrong want to protect marriage so badly then they need to do it for real. Otherwise, we the gays will be happy to point out the hypocrisy in their thinking.
How, you ask?
Well, as one commenter on my page suggested, how many signatures do we need to put an "anti-divorce" measure on a ballot?
I will bet we can get them. Then you will have much to answer for!