Sheryl and I were married 31 years ago today; I wonder how we did it given that the “Defense of Marriage” act just passed? I wonder if love and friendship and all that had anything to do with it? Actually, the state has already penalized us for all these years of marriage; all of you married folks are very aware of the so-called marriage penalty that’s reflected in the US tax codes.
The only thing that keeps me from being completely disgusted by this show of ignorance is that something like 13 other states have passed similar measures.
My belief is that a constitution defines the nature of the relationship between a people and their government. Further, the constitution has traditionally been a means of enumerating rights, not restricting them.
By both those measures, the Kansas constitutional amendment that passed in today’s election fails to pass muster. Civil arrangements ought to be handled by the law, not via the constitution. Laws help define our relations with each other; the constitution should be reserved for defining our relationship with our government. In addition, the precedent of using the constitution to restrict rights can only come to no good.
I wonder what people are really worried about? If it’s the moral angle, I think that’s well covered. If “gay marriage” is truly wrong, then the price will ultimately be paid, and as I was raised, it’s not our place to be in judgement of others. I’m pretty certain I learned that part of the scripture with no misunderstandings.
Further on the moral issue: gay marriage isn’t even in violation of any of the 10 commandments; I don’t think the constitution has addressed, say, the issue of murder, as that’s rightfully dealt with via law, not via the constitution. So why the big todo over civil arrangements that, especially in a so called conservative nation, ought to be strictly private matters?