Mar 16, 2010

Three GOP State Senators Vote To Block Passage Of Marriage Amendment

Today state Sen. John Eichelberger's (R-30th Dist.) Marriage Protection Amendment failed to make it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Members of the Committee voted 8 to 6 in favoring of tabling the bill. The motion to table Senate Bill 707 was proposed by Sen. Daylin Leach (D-17th Dist.), the lead sponsor of the state’s marriage-equality bill.

Sen. Eichelberger's amendment attempted to strenghten the Defense Of Marriage Act legislation that became law in 1996 by amending the state's constitution defining marriage only as between one man and one woman. The bill would insert the following language into the state constitution:
“Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid and recognized as a marriage in this Commonwealth.”
The reasoning behind any effort to amend the state's constitution defining marriage is to protect the Defense Of Marriage Act from an attack by the judicial branch where one activist Judge could decide that 1996 law was unconstitutional.

My biggest issue however is that three republicans in the senate sided to vote for tabling the amendment. If the Republican Party believes in protecting traditional family values than how can three republicans get away with tabling this bill. Heck what would have been wrong with moving the bill to the senate floor for a vote. Here is how members of the committee voted.
Leach’s motion was supported by Democratic Sens. Jay Costa (43rd Dist.), Lisa Boscola (18th Dist.), Michael Stack (5th Dist.) and Wayne Fontana (42nd Dist.), as well as Republicans Mary Jo White (21st Dist.), Jane Earll (49th Dist.) and Patrick Browne (16th Dist.).
Now we have all these wacko, gay rights advocates blogging about how this is some major victory for gay marriage all over the bloggosphere. Does anyone see just how ridiculous this is besides me? Our country was founded on the principles of limited government folks meaning stay the heck out of our lives gay rights advocates and sanctity of marriage supporters!!!

As a libertarian leaning/fiscal conservative, I am on the fence on whether to support any efforts by any government entity defining marriage. I am a big believer in limited government and a follower of the political philosophy of John Locke who believed the sole purpose of government is to protect property. Therefor any attempt by government to define marriage either as a union between same sex genders or mixed genders just doesn't make any sense to me.

I think that history has proven that when governments begin legislating controversial social issues like abortion and gay marriage it only makes things worse within the political discourse. I view these issues more from Constitutional separation of church and state perspective. Abortion and gay marriage is more the result of the failure of religion in America instead of the governments responsibility protect some traditional values/moral code.

No comments:

Post a Comment