Tuesday, December 09, 2003

I don't agree with this guy on a few things, but not because I support a marriage amendment - I don't. He's got the Amendment That Never Was interpretation wrong (read the article to know what I'm talking about).

He states it was enacted to restrict rights (just as a Marriage Amendment would do), and that it was unconstitutional. I agree with him that it was unnecessary, but not for those reasons, and it wasn't unconstitutional. It was unnecessary because a reading of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments covers it - that's also the reason why it wasn't unconstitutional.

I believe the Ninth and Tenth Amendments cover gay marriage as well - it's none of the federal government's business.

gfn.com - Spotlight News

No comments: