I have the distinct misfortune to live in Marylin Musgrave's Congressional District in Northern Colorado. I was already less than pleased with the responses from some of my letters to her. For instance: she was not aware when I wrote to her about the President's proposed changes to Dept. of Labor rules regarding over time pay that any such change was planned.
And then came her marriage amendment, which is in the news again because it looks like the President prefers her version. Religious conservatives claim that it only bans gay marriages, but as many other people are pointing out today, that's not what it really says. The best analysis is here.
Lets take a look at the amendment proposal itself:
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
A quick read shows that this is neither aimed at activist judges (it specifically mentions Congress and state legislatures), nor interested in preserving civil unions when it says "marital status or the legal incidents thereof" are banned.
This particular little bit of legalese is not just a bait-and-switch, but it also shows that despite their previous claims, Republicans are no longer about States Rights, unless it suits them. Otherwise they wouldn't care os Hawaii, Massachusettes, or South Carolina allowed gay marriages. this is a case of them attempting to impose their view of the world on the entire nation.
I'm personally not sure how I feel about the whole gay-marriage issue. I well understand both sides of the argument. For now, I tend to come down on the civil union side, mostly over the semantics of what the term "marriage" itself means.
Of course, if anyone has good arguments for why that isn;t enough, I'll be happy to listen.