Monday, June 05, 2006

A new low in Operation Look-A-Baby-Wolf-ism

Well, George Bush has once again shaken me out of my blogging complacency.

I applaud him for realizing that the constitution does not currently allow a federal marriage ban.* Unfortunately, he sees this as a bad thing.

First, my view of the constitutional questions. Article I Section 8 enumerates the powers of Congress, and no where in it is marriage mentioned, nor is there any power granted to Congress that could make sense. So Congress doesn't have the right to prohibit states from recognizing gay marriages without an act of Congress. The 14th Amendment pretty much outlaws making sexual distinctions in marriage laws. My argument flows thus. Under current law, Nicole Kidman was allowed to marry Tom Cruise. However, John Travolta would not be allowed to marry Tom Cruise. What makes John Travolta ineligible to marry Tom Cruise when Nicole Kidman is eligible? Nothing but gender. However, Amendment XIV, Section 1 states that no state may abridge the rights of any citizen of that state, nor deny them equal protection under the law. Therefore, if one citizen is allowed to marry Tom Cruise, any citizen must be allowed to do so.

Now, the only reason to propose a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages, is that you believe that the current bans in place are unconstitutional. That and that you're a jerk-off who's terrified that if somehow, somewhere, a gay person is married, and you're married, that must mean that you're gay.

Either way, I'm longing for the days when Clinton was bombing Iraq to distract us from his Oval Office hijinks, rather than introducing stupid Constitutional Amendments to distract everyone from your incompetent elective wars and ballooning deficits and general utter incompetence in office.

* Care to read the rest of the damn Constitution now, assclown?