Monday, June 05, 2006

Stifling debate?

This afternoon, Michael Medved had on Harry Knox (of Human Rights Campaign) who was expounding on the Democrat's talking points about the Marriage Protection Amendment. The guest went off-script, however, commenting that a Constitutional Amendment was a bad idea, because it would stop the debate, which was still developing "nicely" around the country.

Stop the debate? What does he think the Massachusetts Supreme Court did when it mandated that the Commonwealth's legislature rewrite the marriage law to suit the judges?

Mr. Knox obviously forgot that approving Constitutional Amendments can take years, with debates in each state. Lots and lots of debate, all across the country, with no guarantee that the Amendment will ever pass. Remember the Equal Rights Amendment?

And if the Amendment passes, it can be nullified later through the same process. Think Prohibition.

[Updated 6/6/06, 1730 EDT, with correct name of Michael Medved's guest and bio link.]