Federal Marriage Amendment: A Final Thought

This will be the last same sex marriage post for a while. Beyond this, I have said all that I want to say on the subject. I’ve staked out my position and explained it to the best of my ability; I am neither trying to convert people to my way of thinking nor trying to find someone to convert me. In fact, it isn't really even about same sex marriage; it's about the reaction that was provoked by President Bush.

Seeing and hearing people saying that Bush’s support of the FMA is an assault on the Constitution is starting to irritate me.

The Constitution is not holy write. It is not unchanging. It is not bullet proof. It is not perfect. In fact, the document contains the methods for change within itself. The framers realized that it was imperfect, and that it may not serve the nation indefinitely in its original form. Seeing that, they set forth methods to change the document that were difficult, but guaranteed that the change proposed would be one that was truly needed or wanted by the majority of people.

Suddenly, President Bush vocally supports using one of those methods of change for an amendment that was already being discussed and he is shredding the Constitution, mounting an assault on our freedoms, and generally wreaking havoc on the free world. You would think he suddenly broke out a pair of scissors and started cutting out the bits that he simply didn't like.

Sorry, folks, but I just don't see it. He hasn't declared himself King (or even Ruler of the Blogosphere, which is good because I'm fairly certain that his Secret Service guys could take me in a fair fight) or ordered us to follow his every dictate. He hasn't even tried to directly codify anything specific into law. All he did was take sides on an issue, which Presidents have been known to do on occasion.

In fact, who is mounting an assault on rule of law in this situation? The man who simply supports amending the Constitution using those legitimate channels that are laid out in the Constitution? Or the mayor who openly violates state law in hopes of forcing that change?

I'm not saying that the President is right or righteous in his cause, but could we move onto arguing the merit (or lack) of the FMA rather than resorting to hysterics and hyperbole to attack a man who is not acting in any radical or extra-legal way?