03 February 2005
SD Debates Marriage Amendment
Due to minor details, like a job, etc., I haven't follwed these debates nearly as well as Mrs. Chief has been (she has been net-streaming the live debates). She has related a lot of crocodile tears on the part of some about the prospect this being allowed to come to a vote.
Of course there's the obligatory P.C. opposition to this, and the usual gay-lesbian acivists, etc. It's said that there's no need for this, since we already have a defense of marriage law on the books. If the law is such a good guarantee, then why would someone worry about an amendment also, Hmmmm. The only time an amendment would be needed was if some judge somewhere ruled the law to be unconstitutional based on some contrived legalism. As often as this has happened in the past, this is NOT an unreasonable concern. The law is good, an amendment is needed, specifically protect against an undesirable judicial activism before it has a chance to happen.
Mrs. Chief also reported that she heard that argument was made in the form of a rebuke from some to their fellow legislators for having the unmitigated gall to ACTUALLY LISTEN TO THE WILL OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS in supporting this amendment! (Shocking, simply shocking!) Imagine, a representative government that actually is trying to represent! The very idea of those pesky voters expecting any such thing to happen! Next thing you know the conservatives might actually gain a stronger role in the government! Oh,......yeah.
Arguments like that make me wonder whether there must be something in the water up at Pierre, or something. Hmmm. Could there be an underground aquifer connecting the Missouri and the Potomac? There's a possible research grant there for an enterprising grad researcher out at the School of Mines!
Of course there's the obligatory P.C. opposition to this, and the usual gay-lesbian acivists, etc. It's said that there's no need for this, since we already have a defense of marriage law on the books. If the law is such a good guarantee, then why would someone worry about an amendment also, Hmmmm. The only time an amendment would be needed was if some judge somewhere ruled the law to be unconstitutional based on some contrived legalism. As often as this has happened in the past, this is NOT an unreasonable concern. The law is good, an amendment is needed, specifically protect against an undesirable judicial activism before it has a chance to happen.
Mrs. Chief also reported that she heard that argument was made in the form of a rebuke from some to their fellow legislators for having the unmitigated gall to ACTUALLY LISTEN TO THE WILL OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS in supporting this amendment! (Shocking, simply shocking!) Imagine, a representative government that actually is trying to represent! The very idea of those pesky voters expecting any such thing to happen! Next thing you know the conservatives might actually gain a stronger role in the government! Oh,......yeah.
Arguments like that make me wonder whether there must be something in the water up at Pierre, or something. Hmmm. Could there be an underground aquifer connecting the Missouri and the Potomac? There's a possible research grant there for an enterprising grad researcher out at the School of Mines!
