Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Sen Reid, Ashdown on Marriage

Mawage.....mawage is da weeson we our gatered hero today......

First, Utah's future Senator:

After vigorous debate and much public outcry, the United States Senate has finally found a solution to the hot topic of illegal immigration. Ban gay marriage and flag burning.

Maybe its my genetic memory calling, but governmental involvement in marriage doesn’t rest easy with me. Imagine by some miracle this grandstanding on gay marriage actually takes hold and it becomes the 28th amendment to the constitution. Then what will stop government from going further in defining marriage? Say for example, that in order to stop all marriages of convenience, or marriages for citizenship, the government must now be allowed to verify the ceremony with a representative. In Utah, where LDS marriages are performed in temples where only active members are permitted, this legislation would go over like a lead balloon.

And now, Utah's most effective Senator, Harry Reid of Nevada, from the floor of the Senate:

I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. I believe in our federal system of government, described to me in college as a central whole divided among self governing parts. Those self governing parts -- the 50 states -- have already decided this on their own in state after state. For example, in Nevada the constitution was amended to prevent same sex marriage. Congress and President Clinton passed a law that gave the states the guarantee that their individual laws regarding marriage would be respected. The Defense of Marriage Act creates an exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution so that no state can force its laws of marriage on another.

So why are we being directed by the President and this Republican majority to debate an Amendment to the Constitution, a document inspired more than two centuries ago? Why would we be asked to change this American masterpiece?

Will it next be to constitutionally dictate the cause of divorce, or military service, or even what America's religion must be?

So for me it is clear the reason for this debate is to divide our society, to pit one against another. This is another one of the President's efforts to frighten, to distort, to distract, and to confuse America. It is this Administration's way of avoiding the tough, real problems that American citizens are confronted with each and every day:

High Gas Prices.

The War in Iraq.

The National Debt.

Health Care.

Senior Citizens.



Trade Policy.

Stem Cell Research.

Each issue begging the President's attention, each issue being ignored -- valuable time in the Senate spent on an issue that today is without hope of passing.

These issues are not Democratic issues. These issues are not Republican issues. There must be bipartisan efforts to address America's ills.

I will vote no on the Motion to Proceed, as it is not a measure meant to bring America together. Rather, it is an effort to cover and conceal the issues necessary to make America more competitive, caring, considerate and stronger.

Together, America Can Do Better.


That One Guy said...

"Mawage.....mawage is da weeson we our gathered hero today......"

Love that movie.... "Inconstsheevable!"

"anybody wanna peanut?"

good stuff... and 2 great quotes as well.

Anonymous said...

Ashdown must not be married. Otherwise, he'd know that government has been intimately involved with marriage since the invention of government (marriage has been around a lot longer than that).

When I got married, I had to go to the county offices and fill out a GOVERNMENT application. They asked me questions like how old I was (the government won't let me get married if I'm not a certain age!), whether I was already married (the government won't let me get married if I'm currently married to someone else!), whether I was the opposite gender of the person I intended to marry (in the state where I got married, they wouldn't allow it if we were the same gender!), whether I was related to the person I intended to marry (they would have stopped me had we been brother and sister, or even first cousins!), and even whether we would like to opt for a special government-created form of marriage called "covenant marriage" that would alter the legal rules under which we could obtain a divorce (available only in a few states). A government official had to sign my marriage license, and I had to take it to the LDS temple and have the sealer sign the government document in his capacity as a government official.

There are a lot of plausible arguments against a marriage amendment, but "we can't let government get involved in marriage" is not one of them.

And as for Harry, frankly, as an average American citizen, I deal with marriage--both my own marriage and the marriages of others--a lot more frequently (in his words, "each and every day") than I deal with the war in Iraq, stem-cell research, trade policy, or even high gas prices. And his claim that Bush is "ignoring" these other issues is disingenuous. You actually think Bush pays no attention to Iraq whatsoever because he's so involved in the marriage amendment? C'mon. That's not a plausible argument against the amendment either. You were elected to deal with a whole host of issues facing our nation, some more important than others. When an issue comes up, deal with it and vote your conscience. And then move on to other issues.