The Un-Constitutional Constitutionalists
In last night's NH debate among the Republican presidential candidates, half of the candidates expressed support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and woman. The only basis for such a recommendation is religious doctrine — i.e., the belief that the Bible and/or God forbids homosexuality. Leaving aside the fact that the Bible unequivocally condones genocide and human sacrifice (which fundamentalists conveniently ignore when they tout that the Bible is God's literal word), marriage — whether homo-, hetero-, or a-sexual — is a personal contract between two people. As such, marriage should be handled and viewed — by state and federal government — as a legal contract with zero consideration being given to religious zealotry.
The US Constitution never once mentions God, a supreme being, Christianity or any other religious belief. The Constitution, however, makes it quite clear that religion should have no part in the governance of the country. Indeed, one could make a strong argument that many of the founding fathers were agnostics if not atheists. The US was not founded as a Christian nation and should not be taken over today by fundamentalist Christians.
If Bachmann, Pawlenty, etc. feel compelled to define marriage as the union of man and woman — they should do so within the confines of their own churches.
It's very odd that the staunchest supporters of "small government" and "individual rights" and are also the most virulent advocates of government intrusion in the home.
Follow Technorati