Okay here we go.. first allow me to say, I like Representative Michele Bachmann. Continually I have seen her stand against big government and a return to Constitutional reasoning. All of which fly in face of her most recent policy position on suggesting a Constitutional amendment which defines marriage as being between a man and woman. I can’t help but wonder who slipped her socialist Kool-Aid when she wasn’t looking? Socialist in the sense that her beliefs supersede common sense and a purist recognition as to what the fundamental concepts of the Constitution are about.
What exactly is the Constitution for? Well, if you’re Barack Obama it’s chuck full of negative liberties, a.k.a rights granted the America people through our humanity by God. Which according to the Obama world prevent him from creating the socialist Utopia which in theory may sound all comfy cozy but in the reality hasn’t worked ANYWHERE in the world. That’s is why he believes it to be negative.
Now enter Michele Bachmann, given her recent stated policy position, she must believe the Constitution is for constructing society according to her religious beliefs. Sure she tries to wiggle around it by stating:
…it’s also up to the states to decide whether they permit same-sex marriage.
After all, the family is the fundamental unit of government.
How is the family a fundamental unit of government? Seriously, isn’t that what aspects of the Tea Party are rallying against; intrusive government in to the very intimate fabrics of our lives? If Bachmann believes the family and government are intimately tied together then how can she rationalize her belief that Obamacare should be repealed? I mean come on, a healthy family and all should also benefit the government? Just how exactly are the family and government tied together? Outside of the abuse of children in the family unit, the government should have NO say as to what the family does.
Previously staked out my position on the lesbian/gay marriage issue here.
I do believe activists to be wrong headed in their demands for using the word marriage. Yet that does not mean that it warrants a Constitutional amendment to define marriage.
The Constitution is meant, from my understanding, to guarantee individuals in American society liberties which are afforded to all. Nowhere does creating privileged rights belong in the Constitution. Privilege being defined as federal granting of protection to some which are not available on equal terms to all. Wasn’t that exactly what the 19th Amendment was about, when women were the final class of people allowed to vote?
Actually when you think about it the lone time the Constitution has been amended to prevent an action or behavior was with ratification of the 18th Amendment otherwise known as prohibition. We all know how well that worked out and eventually was the catalysis for the 21st Amendment, the repeal of prohibition.
If Bachmann or others feel this is their Christian duty to proclaim through Constitutional authority the definition of marriage what comes next? Seriously, should we also define and limit divorces? If not why not, it would follow the same logic. It’s all about protecting the family, right?
Patriots may come to the table with different religious beliefs, be of different races, have various economic capabilities but if the underlying theme which draws them together isn’t about our Constitutional secular government then this movement is doomed.