Much Ado about Absolutely Nothing

Today, our very busy U.S. Senate, which obviously has many very important issues to consider, will consider the frivolous notion of a constitutional amendment with the intent to prohibit same-sex marriage. This is the same senate that recently attempted to give away a piece of our great country by passing their version of an immigration bill whose only benefit to anyone appears to be votes for incumbents, presumably in gratitude for legalizing an estimated twelve million border-hopping aliens and giving them the right to vote. However, unlike the immigration bill, which concerns a consequential issue, the stupid issue of a constitutional ban on homosexual marriage under the thinly veiled guise of “defining marriage” doesn’t deserve the senate’s time. This is an obvious attempt by the senate and the administration to pander to their Ãœberchristian fundamentalist constituency, in what appears to be a desperate effort to salvage the endangered 2006 mid-term election. This Turkey objects to wasting the public time and money on this nonsense.

Ostensibly, this misguided amendment is intended to curtail overreaching judges who would ignore state marriage legislation that has been on the books for time immemorial. Don’t we already have an appeals process that allows the decisions of any particular wacko judge to be examined and overturned if he or she acts out of line? Our federal constitution creates a judicial branch. Doesn’t the notion of amending the constitution to neutralize the checks and balances provided by the judicial branch for this one narrow issue establish a foolhardy precedent? If you’re going to amend the U.S. Constitution, prohibit any judge from creating de facto legislation. Obviously, that’s not going to happen. And fortunately, this foolish amendment has no chance of passing, either.

Being a Floridian, the Turkey is no stranger to constitututions cluttered with extraneous amendments. The Florida Constitution is now laden with absolutely nonsensical amendments that, among other things, protect pregnant pigs, establish classroom size limitations, and create a public initiative for a bullet train. In Florida, special interest groups are able to get constitutional amendments on the ballot in the form of a simple referendum, and the dumbed-down electorate is only too glad to vote for what it thinks are worthwhile ideas. Our vast, clueless electorate is too easily swayed by advertising, succumbing to which is much easier than studying issues and their effects. Voters don’t seem to understand the purpose of a state constitution and they don’t seem to understand that those who would clutter it with these frivolous amendments are merely trying to circumvent the legislative process, trumping it by appealing directly to the people.

The Florida constitution was written in the post-Civil War days of Reconstruction, and was bent on “safeguarding” the state from many of the perceived dangers unleashed by postwar sentiments. Fortunately, our founding fathers put much more serious thought into the creation of a federal constitution. While it is a relatively simple matter to amend the Florida constitution, amending the U.S. Constitution is a much more arduous process. An amendment first has to pass in both the senate and the house of representatives with a two-thirds majority, and then it goes to the states, where a three-fourths majority must ratify the amendment. Most such attempts die a slow death (viz., the Equal Rights Amendment) because there is a seven-year time limit to complete the process. However, in the short run, proponents and opponents alike make a lot of noise, which publicizes their causes and giving them a differential advantage in chosen segments of the electorate. In this case, the proposed ban on homosexual marriage amendment is intended to energize voters of the religious right, who detest homosexuality in any form. You can be certain that there will be corresponding backlash from the loony left.

Homosexuals, at least those who describe themselves as such, comprise perhaps three percent of the U.S. population on a good day. (I think they were all at Disney World last week.) Why do we care what they do? As long as they keep it among themselves, I could care less what they do—unless it involves wasting our time.

I draw the line when activists of this three percent population segment and their panderingly politically correct elected supporters (read vote buyers) conspire to impose the homosexual agenda in ways such as mandating that school districts give equal time and space to “gay couples” and “gay concepts” in instructional materials and situations in public schools. Our public schools are in bad enough shape already without having to promote the “gay lifestyle,” an especially egregious practice when children in lower grades are subjected to it, as is the case dictated by recent California legislation. I’ll vociferously oppose any such efforts. Government at any level must not assert itself by legislating lifestyle choices and promoting one over another in the name of tolerance or anything else. Why is this any different than legislatively favoring one religion over another?

What homosexuals do among themselves is none of my business. Moreover, it is none of our government’s business. Nevertheless, I do not personally favor pandering to this tiny minority and I do not like the idea of “gay marriage.” My beef here is not with homosexuals, gay activists, anti-gay activists, the religious right, or anyone else on either side of this debate. My beef is with my elected officials for spinning their wheels, wasting time, energy, and money on this stupid hot-button issue.

With any given lifestyle comes associated perils. I chose to live in a gated community with deed restrictions. The rules state that I cannot paint my house green or pink or use red mulch. If a judge came along and said that I could paint my house bright purple because he didn’t like deed restrictions, would this serve the microcosm of my neighborhood well? Or would it just serve to further a rogue judge’s anti-homeowners’ association agenda while flipping the bird at the desires of the majority of my community? HOA and marriage laws have been on the books for a long time and those who come into the game late must play by the rules.

I detest those who attempt to fix things for themselves by finding a sympathetic judge. Let them all move to San Francisco. In any case, let’s eradicate the pustule of creative judges instead of compensating for their presence. I don’t care whether you call it “civil union,” marriage, or legitimized cohabitation, this is an issue for the states to legislate and regulate, not the federal government. Most states have the sense to define marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman; however, some liberal rogue judges running around out there who interpret these state laws rather loosely to include monosexual unions. In other words, they ignore extant laws and legislate from the bench. Wacko left wingers have long relied on this technique to circumvent laws created by elected representatives. At times, it is the only way they can “pass” their agenda. But an amendment of the U.S. Constitution is not the answer; it would be a case of two wrongs not making a right.

President Bush, or perhaps his handlers, apparently sees this constitutional amendment as an opportunity to “galvanize” the religious right—a desperate, flailing attempt to recapture some of the currently disgruntled voters who put him in office in 2000 and again in 2004 (admittedly against incompetent and inconsequential opposition in both cases). However, this pandering attempt is simplistic and ridiculous. Bush turns a deaf ear to to the eighty-five percent of the population who wish to protect our borders and not give amnesty to admitted law breakers, a mainstream issue that transcends party lines for all but the hardest of the hard-core, Teddy Kennedy worshipping lefties bent on the destruction of capitalism; nevertheless, he takes the time to pander to the Jerry Falwell goofballs. Our president has to run a war in Iraq (which I support, although it could have been better managed all along) and a broader war on international and domestic terrorism; he has to worry about Iran; he has to protect our borders; and he has to concern himself with dwindling energy reserves—yet this is what he wastes time on? Give me a break, Bush. If you want your support base back, veto a few profligate spending bills handed to you by the greedy-ass congress. Don’t squander your “political capital,” as you described it after winning in 2004, on nonsense like this stupid proposed amendment.

We need strong leadership in the White House and in Congress to speak up and declare this thing a big waste of time and precious legislative resources. Alas, such leadership does not exist.