Pander, Pander, Spit. Repeat

Since when did the US Constitution give the Federal Government the power to legislate marriage?

President Bush yesterday said he will work with Congress to defend "the sanctity of marriage" against yesterday's decision by a Massachusetts court that the state's constitution guarantees same-sex couples a right to marry.

"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today's decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle," Mr. Bush said in a brief statement released by the White House. "I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."

[...]

Republicans on Capitol Hill yesterday were focused on making sure the federal government and other states don't have to recognize same-sex "marriages" granted in Massachusetts.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Texas Republican, said House Republicans were already moving on that point.

"We are pushing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. We're working on one, we're trying to bring everybody together," he said. "When you have a runaway judiciary, which we obviously have, that has no consideration for the Constitution of the United States, then we have available to us through that Constitution [a way] to fix the judiciary."

First off, I am not all that big of a fan of the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling cited in the summary, however I do realize there are certain powers relegated to the state's under the 10th Amendment, marriage being one of those powers. So the Massachusetts Supreme Court acted well within it's authority to issue said ruling, even if Massachusetts is an extremely liberal state. To answer the inevitable paleo-conservative meme of slippery slope let me say this. First and foremost the United States Supreme Court has stated that the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution does not necessarily apply to laws defining marriage, meaning if one state legalizes same sex marriage then another state does not have to recognize the union as being legal. Marriage laws are inherently state driven and state mandated, one state's laws do not trump the laws of another state. For example, if one state was to legalize (actual) murder (not likely, but bear with me) that does not mean the remaining 49 states' laws making murder illegal are null and void, for that is not the intent of the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution. Clear things up?

What really strikes me as being particularity politically asinine about all this is this. Bush and the Congress pander to the Left with this 400 billion prescription drug plan to Medicare, Bush himself renews the Assault Weapons Ban (read that as any gun that looks scary to a Leftist), they pander to the Left (a group that will NEVER vote for Bush or any other conservative, period) then they turn right around and spit in their collective faces and pander to the Buchanan Wing of the Republican Party with all this talk of a Federal Marriage Amendment to the US Constitution.

News flash for you guys, I did not vote for you to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment (something which will never get ratified by 3/4's of the states anyway), I voted for you to act and pass on a conservative fiscal agenda. It's funny, one state decides to recognize same sex marriages and the paleo-conservatives in Congress push for a Federal Marriage Amendment, but yet when it comes down to nut cutting, they will not seriously debate a Balanced Budget Amendment. A Balanced Budget Amendment falls within the purview of the federal government a Federal Marriage Amendment does not.

Before anyone writes me a nasty emails, let me be perfectly clear. I, in no way shape or form agree with homosexuality, however I realize that what constitutes marriage is, under our system, left up to the states and the states alone to define and not the federal government. Any encroachment on what is a fundamental state issue by the federal government is not a good thing for the country as a whole. My position on this issue has been consistent throughout my entire life, be it gay marriage or abortion, let the states decide. Keep the federal government out of it. For when they get involved in moral issues such as gay marriage or abortion they just make the situation worse, rarely, if ever, do they make it better.

To Mr. DeLay. I am ashamed that you were my Congressman for most of the time I lived in Texas. You are, sir, a mean-spirited son-of-a-bitch who has never met a pork barrel project he did not like. You are, to me Mr. DeLay, a reprehensible human being and one of the worse people to ever have served in the US Congress. True you DO believe in tax cuts, but that is about all you and I will ever agree on. To propose a Federal Marriage Amendment is to spit in the face of the concepts of individual liberty and freedom of which this country was founded upon, rein yourself in Mr. DeLay, by bringing forward a federal Balanced Budget Amendment, leave what constitutes marriage where it belongs, the states.

If you guys keep stupid crap like this up, I will stay home come election day. Being the fact that I have voted in every single election since I hit 18, that is saying a lot.

read the entire story here.

Hat Tip Kallini.Com