Ok... Onto the subject of constitutional amendments and marriage law.
Now. Amendments are changes to the basic foundation of the legal system of the United States. This high level of legal tool was designed purely with the intent of being able to modify this core document, should it become apparent that it will be impossible to change the law without somehow altering it. Now, marriage is not a constitutionally provided right. Marriage is defined by a set of laws defined by United States common law, but mostly by state laws (and some state constitutions maybe...) As such, the laws effecting marriage, homosexual or not, can be altered using an appropriately forumlated law.
This just goes to show the legal immaturity of our president. If he where responsible with the American legal system, he would clearly realize that this is not the place to be making this kind of change. If he wants to ban gay marriage, then he should amend the marriage laws. The constitution is a place to describe the basic functioning of our government. Things like the checks and balance system; the rules governing the size and nature of our armies; and the structure of the state system. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the way marriage is handled. And unlike in the 20's when they abused the constitution to pass prohibition (and then later repeal it) because they felt that the power wielded by the constitution would help bring the force of prohibition down on the country, Bush wants to use it to "codify" a social understanding, which, isn't even a common understanding anymore.
No, this is just a blatant act of a person unqualified to be responsible for direct legal affairs. His lack of education on the subject of law is clear and apparent. Well.. Either that, or this is a blatant attempt to circumvent the rights of the American people by using a pathway that is unregulatable by the Supreme Court. In which case I am not only angry as hell, but motivated. However... It could easily be claimed that this is just a way to tamper with the voting process for now so as to bolster support for him from his republican comrades, who as of late, have been finding it harder and harder to see why they let him run in the first place.
In any case all he is doing is wasting the time of the congress anyway... He needs 2/3 of the congress to vote for the amendment, and then has to get 38 states to ratify it. The odds that 38 different states would vote for it is very poor, although not much worse than getting 2/3 of the congress to pass it.
Oh... And don't get me wrong, other than shared liability, marriage is a religious institution. Thus, the government has no right to restrict gay marriages. However, I can see a political motivation to do so, found in the fact that things like health insurance benefits would then be due to the significant other of an employed homosexual, which could cost the health insurance companies (and their kin) a lot of money.
Thursday,Thursday,Thursday,Thursday! WOOO!!!!
Mood: Kinda violated really...