Dobbs: Gay marriage amendment sheer nonsense
By Lou Dobbs
CNN
Editor's note: Lou Dobbs' commentary appears every Wednesday on CNN.com.
NEW YORK (CNN) -- President Bush this week urged Congress to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, at a time when the United States faces some of the greatest challenges in our nation's history.
So, logically, what could possibly better ensure the prosperous and bright future of working men and women and their families than for the Senate to work on a constitutional amendment that is guaranteed to fail?
It's clear that cynical, patronizing White House political strategists are trying to rally a conservative base that they believe is more base than conservative. They're wrong on all counts.
We're fighting a war against radical Islamist terrorists with ongoing campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're drowning in debt from our growing record trade and budget deficits and we're watching our public education system fail a generation of students. Congress has yet to act on an effective solution to our illegal immigration crisis as millions of illegal aliens flood our borders every year, and our nation's borders and ports are still woefully insecure, four and a half years after the September 11 attacks.
I believe most Americans are far more concerned about their declining real wages and the lack of real creation of quality jobs than the insulting insertion of wedge issues into the national dialogue and political agenda.
But President Bush and the Senate have decided they should take up a constitutional ban of gay marriage. Polls tell us most of us oppose gay marriage. Those same polls are also shouting to our elected representatives in Washington that we want real leadership and real solutions to real problems.
The president and the Senate's Republican leadership are now claiming that an amendment to our Constitution is necessary to save the American family. No matter how you feel about the issue, and many of us feel deeply, a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is utter and complete nonsense. It's an insult to the intelligence of every voter, Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative.
The president and the Senate are focusing on one of the few reasons that has not been proven to cause divorce. They instead should look to financial hardships, and the lack of communication about family finances. The median family income is stagnating while gasoline costs and higher interest rates are eating up the family budget.
Nor is the Senate looking at the national tragedy of out-of-wedlock births: In seven states, more than 40 percent of our children are born out of wedlock. Nationally, more than one out of three of our children are born to unmarried parents.
Both political parties love to excite and enliven their so-called "bases" by focusing on wedge issues like gay marriage, abortion, gun control, school prayer and flag burning. Both the Republicans and Democrats raise these issues to distract and divert public attention from the pressing issues that affect our way of life and our nation's future.
Are these wedge issues really how Congress should be spending its time, especially given how little time politicians spend in Washington, D.C., these days? I'd rather see our 535 elected representatives and this president use their time to combat poverty, fix our crumbling schools, secure our broken borders and ports and hold employers accountable for hiring illegal aliens. And like millions of Americans, I am desperate for a resolution to our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
How can we tolerate elected officials who press wedge issues when 37 million people in the United States live in poverty, one in every eight Americans? Almost 18 percent of children under the age of 18 live in poverty -- 13 million children.
Nearly 46 million people live without health insurance, about 16 percent of the population, a number that has risen by 6 million since 2000. More than one in 10 children are uninsured, and one-quarter of people with incomes below $25,000 also lack any health insurance.
College costs are skyrocketing. There's been a 40 percent jump (inflation-adjusted) in tuition and fees at public four-year colleges and universities over the past five years, according to the College Board. The costs for brand-name prescription drugs have also increased twice as fast as the rate of inflation. In fact, over the past six years, the average rise in the price of brand-name drugs is 40 percent, according to the AARP.
But while these increases in the price of the basics make it harder for hard-working men and women to make ends meet, the president and Congress would rather drive wedge issues than work toward real solutions.
I wonder if the president's political advisers know just how ill-advised and smarmy this wedge issue looks to the millions of us who want solutions to the critical, urgent problems facing this nation. Worse, I wonder if they even care.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/06/dobbs.june7/index.html
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway
Blah, blah, blah, blah. "A gay marriage amendment is wrong, and stupid to boot. Why? Because I don't like it." I would think that even in an opinion piece one should give actual reasons for your opinions. Dobbs just makes broad statements about "millions of Americans" and such, without any basis but his opinion.
I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.
I thought it was rather obvious his opinion wasn't so much about gay marriage rather than it's relative unimportance to more pressing issues. I happen to wholeheartedly agree.
But is it really unimportant?Originally Posted by Wooglin
It deals directly with our Constitution. Not the amendment part, but Article 4:
What happens if New York grants gays to be married but the couple then travels to Alabama where gays are not allowed to be married? Do you force Alabama to adopt New York's law by citing Article IV, Section 1? What about the rights and wishes of the people of Alabama who strongly disagree with gay marriage?Article IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2.
Clause 1:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Agreed. Right now we've got more important things to worry about.
1. Finishing the mission in Iraq.
2. Sealing off that Swiss Cheese border against illegal immigrants and smuggling (of all kinds)
That's just for starters. Anybody feel free to add to the list.
Oh I completely agree with you. I think this issue should be left up to each state and does not belong in the Consistution at all. I think that it is important for the very reason you point out, not that gay marriage itself is important, and not that any of it needs to dealt with at this point in time. It's a non-issue (at the federal level) being made an issue when there are far more pressing matters that need attending to.
I'm not sure you understand what he's saying. The idea is that the full faith and credit clause requires each state to respect the laws of other states, thus, if two people are married in one state, the other states have to respect that. Basically, if one state makes it legal, it becomes de facto legal everywhere else. So far, this issue has been averted in Mass. by Mitt Romney raising up an old law that keeps out of state couples from marrying in Mass. The idea is that maybe it shouldn't be left up to the states because we need a uniform definition of marriage across the nation. Otherwise, if you do leave it up to the states, they're going to have different laws from each other, and it's gonna be a mess.
As far as being less urgent than issues such as Iraq, it's obviously less in your face, short term problem, but in the long run, it will have to be faced, and, looking at the ridiculous stuff Congress deals with in addition to wars and such, I think they have the time to deal with something that, in the long run, is extremely important.
Personally, I think it is more important than the borders issue. Illegal immigration is a problem, obviously, but at its worst it means an overly strained welfare system and a few low end jobs being taken away from citizens. The broader problem of porous borders, i.e., bad people coming into America, is quite serious, but even that, at its worst would mean something like 9/11, very tragic, but, in the broad view, it really didn't have an impact on America apart from the obvious changes in foreign policy and homeland security.
I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.
I see. But to make it illegal at the federal level is to remove the choice entirely from state to state. Sure, it's a nice and tidy solution but it has no place being decided at the federal level, much less a Constitutional Amendment.
I don't particularly care if gay marriage gets messy from state to state. I care that the federal gov't has ignored, and even encouraged, a growing problem of millions of illegals coming here and literally draining my wallet. I care that we have spent 100's of billions on a war over in the ME in the name of "the war on terror" but nobody bothered to lock the front door. I care that we have millions of people here on expired visas and nobody knows where the hell they are.
I'm sure that if you asked around, gay marriage wouldn't be at the top of the vast majority of people's concern lists.
The idea behind an amendment is that it does not remove the choice from the states. The states have to ratify it before it becomes law. Our amendment process is very rigorous. Basically, if an amendment is passed, it's because the vast majority of people want it to. The option of leaving it up to the states actually gives the people less choice, as it would be entirely possible for 4 or 5 people in one state to force all states to recognize gay marriage. If some agenda ridden state supreme court follows Mass's lead, the will of 4 people, 4 lawyers for pete's sake, could override the will of 70% of Americans.
I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.
Take the power of marriage away from the government.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
I've thought about that. It's a nice idea, and it might work, if the gov't wasn't so intertwined in our lives. I personally would like to leave it up to communities. Of course, if justices of the peace can't marry people, it kinda leaves the atheists in a lurch. Interesting.Take the power of marriage away from the government.
I've often daydreamed about privatising the entire gov't, and I think that it could be done, although practically impossible. But this has got me thinking; how would you do marriage in a heterogeneous society like ours so that chaos wouldn't ensue? On the other hand, the chaos would really only be at the gov't level, if gov't didn't have anything to do with marriage, it would simply be a matter of whether the community you live in accepts you. Hm. I'll have to think about this. If I ever build Utopia, I better have this figured out.
I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.
It is a nice idea.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
3. Making sure the dollar stays afloat in the international market.
IMHO, I really don't care about homosexuals and how they interact, as long as they don't force themselves and their beliefs upon me. If they want to get married, fine. Just leave me the hell out of it.
Last edited by leib10; 09 Jun 06, at 09:04.
"The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man
I was under the impression that marraige would be defined as "between a man and a woman" at the federal level...?
He's right, completely right. This is cheap wedge politics from an administration that has failed so dismally in so many areas of policy it boggles the mind as to how they got re-elected. (Then again, I can't really be sure that Kerry would have been any better).
Worry about Iraq because the way that war was handled was so mind-numbingly stupid that Rumsfield should have been jailed for criminal neglegence. Worry about Afghanistan because the Bush administration never made a proper effort there to begin with. Worry about New Orleans because the entire system failed from top to bottom and that should be very very scary to all of you. Worry about your health system because it strikes me as being really unfair.
And yes, worry a lot about that border, I can't believe how Government after Government has ingored the ease with which spies, fugitives, smugglers and terrorists can cruise between the USA and a Developing country with a corruption problem.
And try to do something about the cost of developing new gear for your Military, because it hurts our's too.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: