Last night I was watching the Senate debate the marriage amendment on CSpan2 (don't judge me) and I was lucky enough to hear Pennsylvania Rick Santorum speak about the amendment.
Mr. Santorum said that other Senators have not discussed the issue itself but the politics of the issue. He said that the other Senators argued that this is not a big enough issue for a Constitutional Amendment. He then quoted the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the Constitution "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened." He argued that this wasn't a grave issue that threatened to tear apart the union. True Mr. Santorum, but I believe that this issue could only be solved by an amendment to the constitution. Perhaps it could also be regulated by some Congressional regulation, but I believe that neither the House nor the Senate has the right to impose such restrictions on the other, unless it says so in the constitution. Consequently, it must have been an important issue because it was ratified by 2/3rds of the House and Senate and 2/3rds of the state legislatures. Interestingly, the amendment was ratified by the vote of Michigan. In addition, this amendment was originally proposed with the first ten amendments (bill of rights), so obviously, this was an issue since the founding fathers ratified the constitution. Either way, this amendment addressed a Federal issue, not a State issue that could be handled without an amendment.
Mr. Santorum argued that preserving the family was more important than the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the Constitution. The Defense of Marriage Act, though I believe to be wrong, has handled the issue effectively; it gives the power to the States to regulate marriage. There is nothing in the Constitution that says anything about marriage, and so therefore it is a state issue and should be decided by the states. Why is the amendment being proposed? Well, because Massachusetts decided for itself what it feels about marriage and Mr. Santorum and his fellow conservatives didn't like the decision. The only way to stop Massachusetts and other "rogue" states is through an Amendment. The Senate and House know that no federal law could be passed to regulate marriage, because it would be unconstitutional. It's a state issue, tricky Ricky.
Mr. Santorum says that "activist" judges that weren't elected in Massachusetts have made a decision that goes against the history and tradition of the US regarding marriage. Well, Mr. Santorum, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts per the constitution of the United States has the right to establish it's own legislature, courts and executive branch without the interference of the federal government. It's not fair of him to try to limit that by a Constitutional amendment just because he doesn't like their decision. The constitution should not be used as a battle ground for Mr. Santorums personal values. He said that the senate must invoke Article V of the constitution and amend it so that marriage will be preserved.
Mr. Santorum also has a problem with the Lawrence decision by the US Supreme Court citing that the Senate must stop "activist" non-elected judges from making decisions for the entire country. The constitution purposefully set up the judiciary so the Supreme court judges wouldn't be elected, they are appointed by the president. Mr. Santorum has much respect for Article V of the Constitution but not Article III that describes how the Supreme Court is formed and its justices chosen. He also has no respect for the Fourteenth Amendment that says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges, or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, with due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law." Mr. Santorum, you cannot pick and chose parts of the Constitution to follow. By oath, you have sworn to uphold the entire document, not just certain parts.
Continuing Mr. Santorum explained that the Amendment to the Constitution is to preserve marriage in it's natural and pure form so it can preserve families. He said that there is nothing more important than the family in the United States. He asked the Senators if the family wasn't important. He also said that we must preserve marriage for the children. He said that children deserve to grow up with moms and dads. Why can't they grow up with two moms or two dads? Ok, Mr. Santorum, I agree that family is important and if it suddenly disappeared the whole framework of society would collapse. Now, would an amendment stop that? No, it doesn't enhance or support marriage in any way, it limits who can get married. If I had to guess the reason for the destruction of marriage, I would have to blame heterosexual couples. Heterosexual couples are able to create and dissolve unions. I believe that it is not the creation of unions but the destruction of those unions that tear apart families. In addition, heterosexual couples have unplanned pregnancies which can leave an unnecessary burden on one parent. Homosexual couples would either have to adopt children or exert a lot of effort to plan a pregnancy because the nature of their unions do not allow reproduction. So an amendment requiring marriage be defined as only between a man and a woman would not stop the destruction of marriage, or the family. Homosexual couples have the ability to create more families and more stability, but this amendment would prevent that.
Mr. Santorum then claimed that with the destruction of family, the government would be burdened. He said that "socialist" countries have been in constant decline ever since they have created policies that destroy marriage. (It was funny because he held up this chart for the Netherlands that showed no statistics just a line that descended from left to right to show a "decline". Stupid.) I don't know what Mr. Santorum is thinking of, but in the "socialist" countries like the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, it seems that people are happy and healthy. The entire fabric of their society has not been destroyed. They are happy and prosperous, though there has been a decline in marriage of heterosexual couples. But the proposed amendment would do nothing to encourage heterosexual couples to get married. It doesn't solve the problem that the senator is proposing. It just limits the people who can get married. It stops the creation of families and unions just because he and many others don't want to enter into that union.
Mr. Santorum says that the amendment is not about hate. He says that the amendment is to preserve families and to raise children in stable, happy environments. The amendment does nothing to stop divorce, stop unplanned pregnancies, create incentives for heterosexual couples to enter into a marriage, create incentives for heterosexual couples to have children or even raise them without fear of abuse or neglect. What the amendment does is deprive thousands of individuals from creating families, and stopping these families from raising children in an environment where they get equal protection under the law. The amendment may not be the result of hate, but it may be the result of ignorance, selfishness, and discrimination. I can guarantee that the amendment did not come out of love.
No comments:
Post a Comment