The FMA

There is a half-way decent editorial here from a Cleveland paper. I say half-way because they take cheap shots at those who are supporting the FMA. I might disagree with the FMA, but it's stupid to argue that people are doing it for "political gain." They're doing it because they believe that marriage is in danger in America and they believe that this is the best way to ensure its safety. Even as I disagree with the proponents of the bill, I wish that the left would realize that other people have genuinely different perspectives and sometimes act on principles rather than politics.



But the editorial made a really good point which gets down to the nuts and bolts of why I don't support the FMA,

If that's the way it plays out, it will be good for both the Constitution and the country. No matter what one's position is on the socially divisive questions of same-sex marriage, civil unions and other nontraditional arrangements, the Constitution is not the place to engrave social policy - as we should have learned eight decades ago with Prohibition. Some true constitutionalists of both parties, to their credit, realize that.

I'd still like to believe that both sides can keep a civil approach while dealing with this. I do think there is middle ground, but right now it seems that neither side is willing to give anything to get there.