In the news today, avocates for banning gay marriage in Massachusetts voted to allow a proposed constitutional amendment to go forward today. The measure still needs to be approved during the next legislative session before it moves to the ballot where the citizens of the state would be able to vote yea or nay.
In the rather incoherent move, the legislators voted for it, reconsidered by a vote of 117 - 75 after one of the gay legislatos scolded the other legislators, and, finally, the legislators then voted for it again by a tally of 64 - 132.
Further signs of incompetence by the legislators can be seen through whatthe amendment would do: as written, the amendment would ban further gay marriages from taking place, though it would leave the current gay marriages in place.
What does this action mean: look, we don't hate gays because we allow some to marry; we just don't want any more married.
Some where there was a document in American law that discussed equal protection under the law. I am not sure where it went, but was there a few years ago.
If this passes, I think I will move to Massachusetts and propose an amendment that states only individuals right of center can marry. Maybe only those who earn above $55,000. Maybe only those with blond hair and blue eyes. Maybe only those who believe in the divinity of the five books of Moses (though, how did Moses author books after he died?). Or maybe we can prevent atheists from filing law suits.
If you could pass any amendment, what would it be?
1 comment:
No more Presidents from Texas.
Post a Comment