I've yet to see a compelling argument in favor of homosexual marriage.

And I've yet to see a good reason for opposing the marriage Amendment.

But this one, presented by the Rino-ettes from Maine, has to be among the worst.

Maine's two U.S. senators say a constitutional amendment proposed by President Bush to ban same-sex marriage is unnecessary at this time.

Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins responded to Bush's effort Monday to rally support for the proposal being debated in the Senate ahead of a test vote Wednesday in which it is all but certain to go down to defeat.

Snowe restated her belief that the issue was addressed by the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex unions from other states.

"As the Defense of Marriage Act has not been overturned by the courts -- and therefore remains the law of the land -- I believe that an amendment to the Constitution is unnecessary at this time," she said.

Citing the same law, Collins said family and domestic affairs have always been regulated by the states and she saw no reason for change.

"Most states, including Maine, have passed laws declaring that they will not recognize such marriages," Collins said. "Therefore, I will vote against proceeding with the constitutional amendment at this time.

That reasoning would be enough to make me laugh my ass off if it did not enrage me so.

After all, the people of Massachusetts thought they were safe -- but an out-of-control court decided that they were wrong.

One of these days, a federal judge somewhere is going to strike down the DOMA or rule that the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment has gay marriage in their penumbras -- and then the argument will not be about whether or not the amendment is necessary, but about the propriety of "rolling back civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution." You already hear that argument in Massachusetts, where it is deployed against those seeking to amend that state'sconstitution to fix what its top court has damaged.

But I'll toss this question out to the distinguished gentleladies from Maine.

Will they commit to co-sponsor the Federal Marriage Amendment in the event that the DOMA is struck down or a federal judge rules in that the US Constitution contains a right to homosexual marriage?

Or is your argument all a sham?

Posted by: Greg at 11:51 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 419 words, total size 3 kb.