It's like Prohibition all over again-- This proposal of a Constitutional amendment To ban same sex marriage across the nation-- If it was to pass at this moment It only waits to be repealed, again Once the generation in charge, now Passes the reigns on to the next generation.
It's just a matter of time, not how, That awaits this banishment of discrimination. Why defile our Constitution, yet again, with two useless amendments?
Why prolong the inevitable? Why not fast-forward past the amendments and the national stage? Like alcohol, the States can regulate marriage as the people dictate.
Haven't we learned this lesson once before? It's just like Prohibition all over again.
Interesting take, though I find the logic faulty. Acceptance of an idea by a certain percentage of the population should not in itself prevent an opposing law from being passed. Ideally, the law protects the minority as well as the majority. I am not in favor of such an amendment, but for reasons other than your stated premise. Your statement that the amendment should not be passed simply because it may be overturned in the future is hardly a valid reason to oppose the act. The amendment (if it gets that far) should be rejected simply because it is bad law, not because it may be overturned by a future shift in popularity. Popularity, or lack thereof, is rarely a factor in law. Such an amendment takes the federal government into territory that was never intended for it to address. That alone, makes such a law questionable. Also, such an amendment would seem to violate other given freedoms, both written and assumed.
Having the states decide, under the authority of the 10th amendment sounds good, but it too has problems, especially if a couple are married in a state which recognizes their union and move to a state which does not. Which states laws should prevail in the situation? Who has jurisdiction? Thanks to the process of ratification, there is little reason for those who support same sex marriage to worry, however, this is a problem that is not likely to be settled for generations. The federal government already oversteps its constitutional authority in more ways than we can count. We do not need to add to the list. Enough of this. I realize your poem was not meant to be a treatise on the subject. As far as the poem is concerned, it appears you spoke from your heart, out of personal conviction, and that should always be honored. I enjoyed your write.
You nailed our problem here and that is federal government just wants their fingers in way to many things. Let the states handle it and to each his own as far as marriage partner.
Tommy
From the land of the milked and honeyed here’s a few political faux pas and a bit of attitude exposed to the harsh light of a Canadian who actually has their own opinion.
From the land of the milked and honeyed here’s a few political faux pas and a bit of attitude exposed to the harsh light of a Canadian who actually has their own opinion.
Share
Print
Save
Follow
Having the states decide, under the authority of the 10th amendment sounds good, but it too has problems, especially if a couple are married in a state which recognizes their union and move to a state which does not. Which states laws should prevail in the situation? Who has jurisdiction? Thanks to the process of ratification, there is little reason for those who support same sex marriage to worry, however, this is a problem that is not likely to be settled for generations. The federal government already oversteps its constitutional authority in more ways than we can count. We do not need to add to the list. Enough of this. I realize your poem was not meant to be a treatise on the subject. As far as the poem is concerned, it appears you spoke from your heart, out of personal conviction, and that should always be honored. I enjoyed your write.
Tommy
Love Tinka