Further thoughts on last post:
Feb. 25th, 2004 01:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
libertangoI 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.
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.
