On the heels of gay marriage being legalized in New York, there is more history in the making, this time on the Federal level.
This morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee met to consider the "Respect for Marriage Act", the bill to repeal the "Defense of Marriage Act". The Obama administration announced its support for the bill on Tuesday, July 19.
In reference to introductory comments by Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who is a member of the first panel:
Tom Minnery, from Focus on the Family, was called out by Sen. Al Franken for misrepresenting a recent study by the Department of Health and Human Services:
Good to know that he backs the same recognition and benefits for the polyamorous, the non-marital romantic, and even the non-romantic arrangements which imaginative consenting adults could ever come up with. In fact, the spirit of his statement would imply that every adult citizen should be allowed to fill out those little "married" boxes on any paperwork, regardless of relationship status. Hey, "married" could just mean "adult." Zero discrimination. Nah, I'm guessing we'd hear "Well, ahem, I'm not sure...I mean, that is...Oops, got a vote I need to be present for!"
I respectfully disagree with Mr. Franken on several points;
I can't find the phrase, "All men are created equal." in the constitution. If I start looking at the larger group of documents surrounding our nation's independence, I find a great deal of hatred for the ability to transfer wealth and property within families and to family members after death (hereditary succession), two primary drivers of marriage.
It's not clear that gay individuals are created gay. The choice to be gay is clearly more discretionary than the "choice" of handedness, but hardly established as a fixture at creation or birth. Moreover, It is fantastic joke to believe all men are absolutely unalterably equal and that human and natural law should enforce said equality. Indeed more humans have been killed in the last century in the name of equality than in the previous two millenia.
The 19th Am. alone, secured a fundamental right to vote for very nearly half of the U.S. population for all of posterity. This amendment repeals another amendment that narrowly prevents an paltry minority of the U.S. population from participating in an obsolete social contract that merely erects a (more) convenient framework of wealth transfer. At best, this Am. is more akin 21st Am. except homosexuals parade in the streets while the gov't raided and people were routinely gunned down in speakeasies.
Minnery misrepresented the DHHS data. Franken misrepresented the 19th Am., equating gender with sexuality and asserting that the number and liberty of women and voting are as large important as homosexuals marrying. I say don't raise the debt limit.