As the U.S. Senate takes up consideration today of a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, there is only one thing that I can be sure of. And that is, that there will plenty of ridiculous political sophistry in evidence on both sides of this issue. Senators will say silly things, in spades.
For example, to get us off to a good start today, Senator Arlen Specter (R) announced his intention to vote no on the issue. In doing so he quoted Barry Goldwater's assertion that we should keep government out of the bedroom.
That's a good conservative principle, for which I'm generally in agreement.
However, the application here is laughable. That train has already left the station.
Government is already deeply involved in "marriage", in the bedroom or out. Governments issue marriage liscenses. If they didn't we wouldn't be having this debate.
Laws are already on the books defining marriage. Courts already decide case law.
The issue is not now whether or not government should be in the bedroom on marriage. It already is. The question is what policy government should favor. Do thousands of years of traditions from every civilization in history prevail, or do current understandings of equal protection under the law? It's a valid debate. Let's have it.
So, to Senator Specter - make a different argument. Oppose it or support it on the merits, not on the specious assertion that government shouldn't be involved in this question.
No comments:
Post a Comment