A quip to remember
I subscribe to the GOP Newsletter. Last week I got the announcement that the MN GOP launched a website to support their effort to abuse the Minnesota Constitution with the disingenuously named Defense of Marriage Amendment.
Shortly after that, an email landed in my inbox that contained an interesting exchange that ocurred between a Jamie Raskin, professor of constitutional law at AU and an Arizona Republican State Senator, Nancy Jacobs:
"As I read Biblical principles, marriage was intended, ordained and started by God — that is my belief," [Jacobs] said. "For me, this is an issue solely based on religious principals."
Raskin shot back that the Bible was also used to uphold now-outlawed statutes banning interracial marriage, and that the constitution should instead be lawmakers' guiding principle.
"People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution; they don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible," he said.
Perhaps this can serve as a pointer for the little legislators who have lost their way. How about authoring a Defense of the Consitution Amendment? Or at least they could rename DOMA more honestly. How about, "Punish People for Being Born In A Way That Makes Us Really Uncomfortable Amendment?"
Note: I quote the snopes version, which seems slightly more relaistic. The urban legend version is more soundbite-terrific, though:
At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?"
Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
posted by Chris Dykstra @ 3:48 AM |
| 
7 Comments:
Is this a decision issue for anyone? Personally I don't care who sleeps with who as long as everyone wants to. If you want to call it marriage or a fling or whatever, I don't think its any of my business.
But I also am not going to let someone feeling strongly one way or the other influence who I vote for.
I just don't care that much. Other than a few nutters on both sides I'd suggest most people feel the same. I think that interest in this issue is way overblown by the MSM.
-Censored
The MN GOP obviousl thinks so. They are making it their centerpiece issue for 2006.
I view the whole marriage thing as a political ploy by both sides. If the DFL was comfortable that it would be rejected and not hurt thier canidates they would allow it to go forward. But they correctly see this issue as one to bring out the inconsistant voter which can hurt thier canidates. Of course the GOP sees this as a boost for thier canidates so they push it hard.
What is really interesting to watch is the shifting political alliances around this issue. The minority pastors, not a traditional GOP constituency, being to me the most interesting. Overall even it it does not pass or even get on the ballot I think it is a loser for the DFL.
Dave
In a recent caucus, one DFLer advocated that it's better to win than put this as the biggest forefront issue. I agree with that. It's important, for sure. But, winning the next election is where I want to put my energy.
If if had more time, I'd organize a big love-tolerance march where we make posters that say things like 'Jesus loves gays, it's you that doesn't', etc. But, not have it be too, too confrontational. Rather, just a more quiet standing up for ourselves. Then, leave the rest of my energy to fighting to get the anti-gay people out of office.
So again, the question isn't "Is this an election issue?" The question is does anyone care enough about this issue to change a vote?
The Republicans must think so, otherwise they wouldn't be wasting their time demagoguing "Teh Gay".
I don't think a principled vote which is explained to constituents is going to hurt the legislator. What does hurt is when legislators say different things to different audiences.
When Mike Hatch says there's no difference between he and Governor Tim Pawlenty on this issue, I see no reason for gays to give him money or vote for him.
Censored says it's not an important issue. It is important to defeat this amendment because what it does is enshrine in the constitution discrimination against an unpopular minority. This amendment goes beyond gay marriage with the legal equivalent language and is an attempt to ban all legal recognition of gay relationships.
Democrats are trying to push several amendments that would increase the sales tax and dedicate it to environmental projects for example. That's a bad idea also - most amendments to the constitution are.
Marriage regulations should be in statute - not in the constitution. That also goes for tax and spending policy.
Post a Comment
<< Home