King voted to codify bigotry in our Constitution. Thankfully the vote failed to reach the 3/4 needed to pass. HJ RES 88 "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage" is another push to make "marriage" only between a man and a woman."Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'.
We covered this same thing two years ago.
The proponents of this amendment are pseudo-intellectuals who use the buffet-style version of history and religion. They take what they like and ignore the rest.
They speaks of “traditional marriage” as if marriage today reflects any tradition older than 50 years. Replace the word “inter-racial” for “gay” and you have what bigots used to protect “traditional” marriage less than 50 years ago. Go back 100 years and marriages for money, business and convenience were the tradition. Go further back and families practically sold their young daughters. Marriage strictly for love the way we have it today is a fairly new tradition.
Rep. Gingrey started the argument for the amendment with this gem "This amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with exclusion, but it has everything to do with protecting the traditional and historical definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman."
The supporters of the anti-gay marriage amendment talk about "traditional marriage." Thy want to use THEIR bible and THEIR religion to dictate laws. King considers himself a devout catholic so he must agree with his buddies when it comes to the bible.
Let's talk about the "traditional marriage" that they so badly want. It's more than just a man and a woman... there is so much more to the old "traditions." How about going back to the Old Testament and Deuteronomy 22:13-21 which says : "If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and then spurns her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings an evil name upon her, saying, 'I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her the tokens of virginity,' then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the tokens of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate; and the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man to wife, and he spurns her; and lo, he has made shameful charges against her, saying, 'I did not find in your daughter the tokens of virginity,' And yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity,' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip him; and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young woman, became he has brought an evil name upon a virgin of Israel; and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. But if the thing is true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has wrought folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you."
Wow! Death penalty for a woman who is not a virgin at marriage? How much more "traditional" can you get?
How about other "traditonal" marriages? Not too long ago brides were considered chattel. Then you have the arranged marriages where the bride and groom have never met.
What kind of "traditional" marriage does King support?
We have too long codified bigtry with the miscegenation laws that forbade different "races" to marry. Would Peter King agree with those laws? So why would he seek to change the constitution to create a new bigotry set in law?
The so-called activist judges this amendment si supposed to circumvent are protecting society from uninformed moralists who don’t believe in the equal protection under the law but seek a theocratic government based on their own misinterpretation of religion.
Roll Call Vote 378 on HJ RES 88
Peter King - YES.
Aren't you glad the congress fixed all the countries problems already and can concentrate on this?