Huffington Contributor Ridicules Marriage Ammendment

Bob Cesca has a piece on the Huffington Blog site about the sanctity of marriage constitutional ammendment being proposed by President Bush. I wrote a response on the website:

You wrote: "But what happens if a same-sex couple is joined in a legally sanctioned civil union? Can they tell people they're married? Sure they can. So why push this pathetic amendment if same-sex couples can still freely define their relationship as being married? The whole notion of a marriage definition amendment is semantically, constitutionally, and morally weak. Historians, sociologists, and civil libertarians of the future are going to have a blast laughing at this one. They'll shake their heads with the same disdain we feel when considering that women couldn't vote in America until 1920.
The first reason is because right now marriage is a states rights issue. With the fact that all states are supposed to honor the laws of the other states, it would take only one state to pass a gay marriage law and the dam would be burst. And the idea that it's constitutionally weak is the reason we need an ammendment. The founding fathers would not have sanctioned gay marriage. Bet on it. And those in the future who will be laughing is those who find the gay life style abhorrent and atrocious.

http://blogresponder.blogspot.com

They haven't posted it yet. We'll see if they have the balls

I'll be back

CC