Split on gay marriage extends to the White House
Seems that the George and Laura don’t agree on the proposed amendment to the US Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman:
Mrs. Bush has warned that promoting the amendment could backfire against the GOP in congressional races in November. She has suggested that a constitutional amendment would hamper any constructive debate over gay marriage.
Laywer says unintended consequences
From the Daily Press:
Given the breadth of the proposed language of the marriage amendment, and its inherent ambiguity in prohibiting contractual agreements between unmarried persons, we’ll face an explosion of lawsuits if this version of the amendment is adopted by Virginia voters.
Amendment strategy
From Commonwealth Commonsense:
Twenty years from now, there will be a quietly effective campaign to overturn all these marriage amendments. If opponents were wiling to make the emotional argument, instead of the legalistic one, we might find the day will come sooner when our children will wonder “what were they thinking?”
Messing with the Bill of Rights
Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, said:
A fundamental human right that straight people take for granted is being put up for a popular vote. It’s a vote as to whether we should have that right. That is fundamentally wrong. That is why we have a Bill of Rights — because our founders knew we should not put up fundamental rights for a popular vote.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 