09 June 2006

Krauthammer on the federal marriage amendment

Charles Krauthammer has a column in the WaPo today which spells out why the amendment is a bad idea, even if you oppose gay marriage, especially this part right here:

“The amendment actually ends up defeating the principle it sets out to uphold. The solution to judicial overreaching is to change the judiciary, not to undo every act of judicial arrogance with a policy-specific constitutional amendment. Where does it end? Yesterday it was school busing and abortion. Today it is flag burning and gay marriage.”

When the problem is rooted in the actions of those who execute or adjudicate the law, the best solution is not always just another law for them to execute or adjudicate. Besides, haven’t proponents of the amendment noticed that there is a debate over what constitutes male and female? Even in the face of this amendment, if it passed, we could still see two “men” marry each other, on the grounds that one of them is really a female in a male’s body. In order for the amendment to have achieved what it sought, it would have to define marriage as being between (all kidding aside) a “penis-bearer” and a “womb-bearer.”

But that wouldn’t work either since it would ban from marrying women who’ve had a hysterectomy and men who have had, well, some sort of accident.

0 comments:

About Me

James Frank SolĂ­s
Former soldier (USA). Graduate-level educated. Married 26 years. Texas ex-patriate. Ruling elder in the Presbyterian Church in America.
View my complete profile

Blog Archive

Capitalism