I'm curious -- has this twerp ever objected to any other vote being held in this location? Or are we seeing a simple case of grandstanding by a wannabe presidential candidate fromt he far left? I doubt it -- but Russ Feingold is better known for his publicity seeking than his fidelity to the Constitution (see McCain Feingold for the classic example of his infidelity to our nation's founding document).

Certainly his confrontation with Arlen Specter is a classic.

A Senate committee approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage Thursday, after a shouting match that ended when one Democrat strode out and the Republican chairman bid him "good riddance."

"I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., shouted after Sen. Russ Feingold declared his opposition to the amendment, his affinity for the Constitution and his intention to leave the meeting.

"If you want to leave, good riddance," Specter finished.

"I've enjoyed your lecture, too, Mr. Chairman," replied Feingold, D-Wis., who is considering a run for president in 2008. "See ya."

Frankly, I can't believe in the arrogance expressed by Feingold, whose lack of fidelity to the Constitution may only be matched by his lack of fidelity to his marriage vows.

Specter noted that the choice of locations was realy a side issue.

Among Feingold's objections was Specter's decision to hold the vote in the President's Room, where access by the general public is restricted, instead of in the panel's usual home in the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Specter later said he would have been willing to hold the session in the usual room had he thought doing so would change votes.

In addition, Specter noted that he voted to send the proposed amendment to the floor because it deserves debate, not because he supports it -- in fact, he does not. I guess he just has the intellectual honesty to allow people to discuss the issues -- something Feingold's previous opposition to unfettered political speech proves he fears.

And what is the text of the amendment?

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman," reads the measure, which would require approval by two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states.

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.

In other words, it recognizes the cultural beliefs and practices of the overwhelming majority of Americans and makes them a part of our Constitutional system, preserving them from renegade judges imposing their will in place of the will of the people.

Posted by: Greg at 10:55 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.