What's the difference between redefining a marriage and redefining a citizen???
Bush claims that "renegade judges are redefining marriage (which is traditionally defined as a union between one man and one woman) as a way to promote gay marriage". He sees this as a bad thing. Our US Constitution, however, doesn't have an opinion on the matter either way.
BUT...When Bush signed "Connor's Law" into effect, what he did was redefine citizen to include fetuses. Our own US Constitution doesn't even do this. Fetuses are now granted rights under the Constitution. Most noticeably the right to life.
Isn't it hypocritical of our President to support one redefinition but not another???
I'm wondering what the next step is going to be. Remember how Bush wanted to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriages and that didn't go thru? I'm wondering what's going to happen next? Possibly an attempt to amend the 1st Amendment to read "Born, Naturalized, or Conceived by Citizen Parents".
2007-08-31
03:08:07
·
2 answers
·
asked by
Adam G
6
in
Law & Ethics