[RAndoMness]=> 28Sep09
 [JPsDocs] => 22Feb09
 [JPics] => 10Dec11

February 2020
sun mon tue wed thu fri sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
recent music
Boycott SONY



    If you go to San Francisco  echo $newRAM;
    added Tue February 24 2004 at 6:33 PM
    Now, I don't nomrally talk about real political issues, mostly because I'm neither a politician nor an informed citizen in most cases. However, this bit about gay marriages has caught even my attention, either in spite of living in the bubble, or perhaps because of it. As with any big controversy, there were several letters to the editor today, replete with uninformed, narrow-minded opinions with very little attempt to really adress the issue. My turn to do the same.

    Actually, what I find more frightening than gay marriages is the the president's support of an attempt to make an amendment to the constitution making gay marriages unconstitutional. The beauty of the American Constitution is in the same ambiguity that makes so many people frustrated with it. The founding fathers knew that this country would run into problems that they never even thought possible, so instead of using the constitution to outline every rule and regulation, they used it to establish the basic structure of government.

    If an amendment to "protect" the sanctity of marriage were to be proposed and passed, how far would it go? What if it gets out of hand? Not to suggest this would happen, but imagine for a moment what would happen if it was decided that for the sake of saving on the high cost to society of divorce, an amendment was proposed outlawing marriage between two adults who had not engaged in intercourse. It sounds silly, of course, but the point is that any amendment to the constitution would have to be so carefully worded to avoid future misinterpretations.

    There's more to read. Read the extended entry.