Marriage law draws crowd City Councilman Bruce Kraus yesterday described such a qualification and the entire move to ban civil unions as a 'mark of shame.'Here is an invite. I'd love to have the text of the Bruce Kraus statement put into the comments of this blog. Click the button below. Copy text. Paste.
He implored members of the Judiciary Committee and the Legislature to stand against the constitutional amendment.
'This need not become your mark of shame, but rather your call to courage,' he said. 'The courage to overcome fear and injustice; to leave behind moral cowardice.
As a Libertarian, I am all in favor of live and let live approach. Government should net set the bounds for behavior among men and women as they choose their life partners.
We need a strong constitution so as to limit the scope of government. So, it makes little sense to craft a new amendment to the constitution that diminishes rights of individuals.
People that want to wed, marry, get into unions, have life-partners -- whatever -- should stand together, in love, before their place of worship, and swear to each other. That's great. And, it is often a religious act. At its roots, it is a 'willing act' of couples that choose to be with other.
Religion is optional. In an ideal world, state involvement would be optional too. But, at the least, the government involvement should be minimal.
The proposed constitutional amendment makes government's position a maxim, a 'deal breaker.'
By the way, I still would like to see the full statement from Mr. Kraus, and any others who have published their public comments. Pointers are welcomed.