Good argument

Slactivist hits at least one nail on the head regarding the push for a Constitutional amendment to privilege certain religious beliefs:

"(San Francisco Mayor) Newsom highlights the contradiction embraced by those who want to argue both that same-sex marriages are not constitutional and that the Constitution must be amended in order to make such marriages illegal.

If these marriages are not constitutional, then there is no need for the FMA (Federal Marriage Amendment).

If these marriages are constitutional, then one cannot argue that they are illegal or illegitimate.

The very effort to introduce and eventually ratify something like the Federal Marriage Amendment concedes the essence of Newsom's argument. Supporters of the amendment, therefore, are at least tacitly conceding that theirs is an effort designed to alter the Constitution in order to make it less inclusive than it is today."

Further thoughts on last post:

I was thinking (yeah, yeah, I know, the Administration discourages that)...

You know all those "Defense of Marriage" laws that have been passed in the last few years?

Again, the only reason one would need a Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) (or something similiar) would be if you already acknowledge that they're all unconstitutional. That same-sex marriage really is not just allowed, but mandated under the Constitution as it currently stands, and that without modification all those damned bills are going to be thrown out by the courts.

So, this is what today's headline of yesterday's speech by Bush should be:

BUSH CONCEDES GAY MARRIAGES LEGAL
Calls For 1st-Ever Amendment To Strip Current Rights

...not that you'll see it that way, of course.