The Marriage Amendment

All I have to say about this is that I join the growing chorus of people asking: doesn’t the president have better things to do?

View All


  1. You misspelled amendment. {/pedanticism}


    1. There, I amended Ammendment 😛

  2. Yeah, not like there are other problems in this country, like, say homeless people, or the fact that 1 out of every 10 children goes to bed hungry every night…

    1. What should that be the president’s business?

      1. Oh, well, y’know, I always thought that a leader would want to absolve his/her country of social problems and fight poverty and take care of people and all that…I mean, that’s what *I* would do.

        1. Sure! If he were God and/or King. But he’s neither.

      2. Because the President is your Great White Father in Washington, and He will give you everything you need as long as you give Him everything you earn.

    2. I’m curious where that last statistic comes from…?

      1. This is a rather generally-universally-known statistic, and is often cited as the validating factor for the existence of school breakfast programs.

        1. See my previous post on crap detecion… I’ve found most conventional wisdom memes like that, which everyone knows everyone else knows but know one knows an actual source for, are actually wrong or at least taken out of context. I’d appreciate it if you could find some source material.

          1. Believe me, if I had time to do the research/digging, I would 🙂 Blasted day job + 3 side businesses! 😉

          2. Update: I’m doing some research now. Don’t have time to complete it, but I’ll try to post about it before the end of the week.

          3. ~laughs~ I feel like I’ve thrown down a gauntlet 🙂

        2. You’re gonna set off Avdi’s crap-detector.

          I hate it when that happens. It’s worse than a car alarm.

            HONK! HONK! HONK! HONK!

          2. Well, I don’t know if it’s “crap” or not, but everyone always said it in the 80’s 🙂

            Truth be told though, I have known alot of families who had to decide whether to pay rent or buy groceries, with the “roof over their head” often winning out. So, I do suppose there are children in this country who do *not* eat the recommended 3 meals a day because there is not always food in the house. (Lived in Maine 7 years and saw ALOT of bare cupboards!)

          3. Not arguing

            I’m quite certain that’s true. What I’ve read so far confirms it. It was the specific statistic that you quoted (one in go to bed hungry) that I don’t believe is true. Like I said, more later; along with an explanation of *why* I’m anal about this sort of thing.

  3. Part I: my thoughts…

    Just because you have poor and hungry does NOT mean you ignore all other problems. Rather, one endeavors to tackle many problems…

    “I always thought that a leader would want to absolve his/her country of social problems and fight poverty and take care of people and all that…I mean, that’s what *I* would do.”
    [[[ You really think so….??? Not saying you wouldn’t try to do more but then reality hits in. Why don’t you give $20 to everyone on the street that asks you for $$$? Simple, you just don’t have the resources. How do you know that the $20 you do give to that beggar goes to food and not booze? Pretty hard eh? Then you realize that just as complicated as helping the beggar is…helping the poor on a large scale is just as hard.]]]

    “or the fact that 1 out of every 10 children goes to bed hungry every night…”
    [[[In the U.S….if that is true it is NOT for a lack of food nor a lack of $$$ but simply a lack of “responsibility” on the part of the parents.]]]

    Now for the main topic…. (first off, put aside your opinions on gay marriages one way or the other and simply look at this from a legal/constitutional standpoint….i don’t want to hear any moral arguments, unfair, fair, morally wrong, equal rights,etc. arguments….simply LEGAL ones.)

    Why is a Constitutional ban being proposed? Simply because our courts have taken on the role of legislators and executives. San Fransisco started giving out marriage licenses to homosexual couples. The issue wound up in court. Now the courts job is to determine whether such a violation of the law and also to determine if laws are fair. In this case, it was a clear violation of a law. However, the court said the law was in violation of the Constitution. Instead of addressing the issue it is being passed via “activist judges”. Furthermore, a clause in the Constitution would, if a single state passed a law allowing such marriage contracts, require ALL states to recognize it. Yes, there is the “Protection of Marriage ACT” which explicitly pronounces each state’s right to make such a decision and protect them from being forced into accepting such arrangements by other states. However, such is just a law and can (and most likely will) be easily overturned by the courts. This is why they are calling for a Constitutional ammendment. Because a judge cannot overturn a Constitutional ammendment. If we passed a Constitutional ammendment that banned the eating of “green olives” a judge could NOT overturn it. But in order to pass a Constitutional Ammendment a vast majority is required. This means the majority of the people believe such to be the better way. Not everyone agrees. Our nation passed the “Prohibition” (a Constitutional Ammendment) and then later ammended the Constitution again to end the Prohibition. This is how our government system works.

  4. Part II: my thoughts…

    The courts have become legislators. Judges are now “passing laws & edicts”….this is EXTREMELY dangerous. In fact, many early founding fathers were extremely leary of the judicial branch and power judges could wield. Realize that “judges” are the only branch of our government NOT duly elected by the people. Therefore judges can, if they so chose, completely ignore the will of the people based on their whim or viewpoints. THAT is a lot of power. Now, it was fine when judges were simply “judging”. However, now that judges are passing laws it is becoming much more dangerous. A supreme court judge has a right to declare a law unconstitutional. However, he does NOT have the right to create a new law. But this is EXACTLY what our judges have begun to do (large and small). A judge could say “segregation” is illegal and/or unconstitutional. But a judge is not supposed to have the right to “require inter-school busing”. The determination of a solution should have been done by the legislative branch.

    And that is why they are seeking such an ammendment (whether one believes it to be right or wrong). And ALL this Ammendment is to do is to protect the states rights. It’s not to ban such marriages but rather to ensure that a state does not have to recognize or support said contracts unless said state has chosen to do so. If it passes, than the majority will have dictated that it is right. Now, you must choose to obey or disobey. However, disobeying is illegal. And in truth, the San Fransisco mayor and clerk should be fined and charged. Just as Judge Moore was for his refusal to obey the court decision with regards to the law. (And Judge Moore actually had a state level Constitutional law he was standing on. San Francisco had nothing but a mayor’s edict.

    Now mind you, the above is all legal perspective. Simply put…things should be done “thru” the legal system. Otherwise, what does it matter. If you don’t recognize the authority of the legal system enough to be obedient to it. Than why should you recognize or care to recognize something like a marriage license. If it’s simply the insurance, etc….almost are private companies. Contact them and put pressure on them to allow such designees.

    – theSaj

Comments are closed.