09 June 2006
Krauthammer on the federal marriage amendment
3:43 PM
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.
“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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- James Frank Solís
- Former soldier (USA). Graduate-level educated. Married 26 years. Texas ex-patriate. Ruling elder in the Presbyterian Church in America.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(300)
-
▼
June
(70)
- Just a little bit more on the Hamdan decision
- Is the Supreme Court now an ally in the Left's War...
- Yes, both Democrats and Republicans are liberals, ...
- Dick Durbin's flag rhetoric is a desecration of logic
- Conspiracy Theory No. 73,410
- Prohibition II?
- When it comes to Democrats regaining power, no lif...
- O, the loyal (HA!!!) opposition
- More minimum wage nonsense
- WMD: an update
- Here's a strategy, Dick
- WMD found!!!
- Don't let them die...not like this!!!
- "Redeploy! Redeploy!"
- Drug cartels taking over big U. S. cities?
- A stroll down Amnesia Lane
- Under the gun
- When you can’t refute your opponent…
- Coming soon: A “conservative” judicial tyranny?
- Even in France?
- Another brilliant Christian shows the way
- Thor has video on Coulter
- Battle weary?
- Always in season
- Understanding Elites…of any stripe
- Now this is good news
- Coulter tweaks the left’s nose
- Krauthammer on the federal marriage amendment
- "Don't cry for me" -- al-Zarqawi
- On Rembrandt’s “Holy Family”
- O, Blogger! Where are thou?
- A little more on the Third Party issue
- The (marxist) social engineering goals of the inhe...
- More fodder from Molly Ivins
- Prager on target
- No good deed...
- Thank you, Zarqawi
- We're still glad he's dead, though
- Ding, dong, the wicked witch is dead
- Obscene oil profits: a post script
- Assimilation, yes, but…
- What I don’t like about the Federal Marriage Amend...
- Appropriations in S.2611
- “Innocuous” fiction
- More ad hominem in public discourse
- Speaking of Normandy
- Instapundit is the "instabeast"?
- Coming soon...
- Bogger for Word
- 060606: something a little more noteworthy
- How a nation can be its own worst enemy sometimes
- Clarification
- The DaVinci Gnostic Code
- 060606: just another day
- Why Canada???
- Ah, sweet land of liberty!
- Do we need a federal marriage amendment?
- Race isn’t an issue, but maybe…
- Freedom loving?
- And speaking of liberal strawmen...
- More on Mexico's economy
- Border hedging
- Please don't help us, Molly. Please.
- Which dike needs a helping finger?
- Self-loving in full display
- I can't believe I'm even thinking this...
- Why Mexico has no thriving economy
- If the shoe were on the other foot
- Human rights for us, too
- O, distracted multitudes!
-
▼
June
(70)
0 comments: