--- Good for Rosie.
Mazeltov. Congratulations. Best wishes for a long life together and all that jazz.
I'm happy for her. I really am. I'm glad she got to marry the woman of her dreams. I still don't have to like her, though, particularly when she says stuff like this:
O'Donnell told the crowd that she and Carpenter, who have been
together six years and are raising four children, decided to dash to
San Francisco after hearing President Bush endorse a proposed
constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage Tuesday.``We were
both inspired to come here after the sitting president made the vile
and hateful comments he made,'' O'Donnell said.
Ok, so what part of this is actually vile and hateful?
Now, I can understand "vile"---because to Rosie, what he said is vile. But hateful?
I don't think so. Get a grip and get one now. If we're to have this
debate, let us make it a debate, not an illogical, irrational hate fest
where someone who disagrees with you can be labeled "hateful." Where,
precisely, is that going to get you in legalizing same sex marriage,
Rosie? Not very far, methinks. Ever heard the one about attracting more
flies with honey, rather than vinegar? Personally, I think this was a
political move. Bush is trying to appease the religious right---those
conservative Christians who feel that marriage needs to be defended
from any possible threat---even if the threat to the institution of
marriage is not from Gays and Lesbians, but from stupid heterosexuals
who can get married and then divorced and all on a whim. And these are
the reasons why I think this.
1. The President of the United States of America has absolutely no part
of the amendment process. It was designed that way for a reason---to
overcome a presidential veto. So, Bush's statement means nothing in the
scheme of things because he doesn't have the power to do anything. He
can make a few phone calls, and maybe twist some arms, but that's it.
That's the full extent of executive authority when it comes to
amendements. Don't believe me? Get out your copy of the Constitution
and read it. It's Article V, if I'm remembering correctly.
2. The proposed FMA hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of actually
passing. DO THE MATH. The constitutional requrements for passing an amendment through Congress demands a 2/3 majority of each
house. Perhaps it will pass through the House, but if anyone thinks
that this piece of excrement will get 2/3 of the Senate, they're
kidding themselves. It won't. If, on the off chance the amendment
actually makes it out of Congress, it goes to the State Legislatures
for ratification---of which, 3/4 of the states must ratify said
amendment. So, there are fifty states in the Union---3/4=38 states.
That means a whopping twelve states could conceivably kill this thing.
Are there twelve such states? What do you think, knowing what you know
about where you live? And do keep in mind that small states and large
ones have the same amount of power in this decision---Rhode Island
wields the same amount of power in the ratification process as
California, in other words. As Tip O'Neill so wisely said, All politics are local.
The FMA doesn't have a chance. This is all election year politics. Make
no mistake about it: even Tom DeLay is up for reelection this year. Not
that this means he won't get reelected, thanks to his efforts in
getting Texas redistricted to his specifications. But he's got to hit
the stump, still. He has to make the effort to get reelected, as do any
other number of Republicans. This isn't going to go anywhere,
so I would really appreciate it if people would untwist their knickers
about it. It's going to wind up in the courts---sooner rather than
later. I would prefer that not happen, because it curtails the amount
of debate on the matter---and we need a debate. How are we to change
minds otherwise?---- and, to some extent, hands a fait d' accompli
to the side that gets the short end of the stick. But as I said last
week, the courts are there for a reason: they are the legitimate third
branch of the government. They play a big part in the checks and
balances the founding fathers set up, accept it and move on.