Call President Bush Today!!
Call President Bush today! Tell him not to play politics with the Constitution. News reports indicate the President is going to hold a White House event on Monday, June 5th to push the anti-family Federal Marriage Amendment. Please call the White House comment line now (202) 456-1111. Tell the President he should be uniting the country, not dividing it.
President Bush’s decision to use the bully pulpit of the Presidency and the formality of a White House event to espouse an anti-family constitutional amendment is an insult to millions of gay and lesbian Americans and our families. This amendment proposal is a direct attack on the core Republican belief in federalism. And, it is an affront to true conservatives and traditional Republicans who have always denounced efforts to play politics with the U.S. Constitution.
There is no stronger and more powerful case against the President’s attempt to write discrimination into the United States Constitution than the words of his own White House and fellow conservatives.
The White House
| “The fact of the matter is that matter [the legal recognition of relationships] is regulated by the states. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that’s appropriate. I don’t think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area.” - Vice President Dick Cheney
|
“It (the marriage amendment) is writing discrimination into the constitution and, as I say, it is fundamentally wrong. I would also hope that no one would think about trying to amend the constitution as a political strategy.” - Mary Cheney
Conservatives
“It is said that this [amendment] is necessary to protect marriage. Whose marriage is this going to protect? How conceivably could it protect any marriage in the United States? Some historian should really look at all the proposals that have been put forth throughout the history of our country for possible constitutional amendments. Maybe at some point in time there was one that was sillier than this one, but I don’t know of one.” - Former U.S. Senator John Danforth (R-MO)
Syndicated columnist George Will recently wrote that the marriage amendment would “clutter” the constitution. He said conservative Senator John Sununu’s (R-NH) vote against the amendment in 2004 “affirmed the value of federalism.”
“I believe that the people of Arizona should make the decision concerning the sanctity of heterosexual marriage and union between a man and woman. And I believe the people of Massachusetts should make their decision, and others. I think it’s up to the states to make those decisions. And by the way, that’s the federalist approach.” - U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
Take action and call the White House at (202) 456-1111. The President’s White House event is scheduled to take place on Monday, June 5th, the same day the U.S. Senate is scheduled to consider the amendment.
“I don’t think (gay marriage) should be used as a campaign tool, obviously. It requires a lot of sensitivity to just talk about the issue - a lot of sensitivity.” –Laura Bush
Resolving the issue now would help it from being used as a campaign tool.
But I think it is an interesting issue on states rights. Ultimately the issue of states rights is one of individual freedom. Each state with its own sovereignty has the ability to try policies and laws for itself with a much quicker iteration cycle than demanding the whole nation tag along. Massachusetts, when not looked at as a beach-head for political maneuvering, is probably a good example of this concept.
The experiment of neutering marriage in Massachusetts would be short-circuited with the FMA. You would expect one would have to show harm to individual rights to warrant such an imposition.
Something to note, on the levels of political entities we can count from the base level of the individual… Individual -> Community -> City -> State -> Nation. But the family is a political unit, just after the individual. The City/County/Province politics are governed by the state, and so are family and individual. But family and individual politics are also governed by the federal government, and this might be explained best on the simple fact that families and individual can cross state boundries.
Does neutering marriage affect any or everyone’s marriage? Can the concepts of neutered and gender-complete marriage co-exist on a national level?
I think the ideal of states-rights is important, but for every reason it is important it is important to define marriage constitutionally. A family gives everyone a chance to use their individual capacities while protecting the offspring. It gives opportunities for a very quick iteration cycle of governmental experience. It protects individual rights.
Comment by On Lawn — June 7, 2006 @ 2:46 pm
Please see my article for February entitled: “Some Valentine Thoughts” at:
http://blogcabinca.org/?p=127#more-127
Comment by Mark — June 8, 2006 @ 8:46 am
I read that at the time, and just now again. I note that it had a strong message of cooperation and mutual support, one that I appreciate and agree with.
My views on marriage in general are more available at the website I registered here with. In short, and especially after reading your piece, there seems to be a way to protect everyone’s interest. And that would be great.
Comment by On Lawn — June 8, 2006 @ 12:53 pm