Recent Articles
- Chris Lugo presents “a case for impeachment”
- In a word, “SPECTACULAR!”
- Hancock: big jerk, bigger mess
- “Wanted” promises action; delivers
- City Judge salary restored
- Civil War Army-Navy Exhibit on display July 4-6 at Fort Donnelson
- Like the Phoenix, Tandoor rises anew!
- The Artist’s Voice: An exhibition featuring artists with disabilities
- Our beautiful Tennessee Smoky Mountains under attack by mining interests
- A WALL-E World we can all believe in
- “Tennessee’s Top Spot” gets failing grade at proper Nighttime National Flag Display
- “Unite For Change!” growing in Clarksville
- Journalist John Seigenthaler to speak at annual Clarksville Writers’ Conference
- DAC to showcase Nada Fuqua, Betty Liles
- Deadline nears for DAC Juried Art Exhibition
« The Power of an Idea | Home | We’ve Got Your Number Soldier »
The risks of amending the constitution to define marriage
By Bill Larson | June 12, 2006 | 
The constitution states that the Congress writes the laws; the Executive branch approves them, and then enforces them; the Judicial branch interprets the meaning of what they say. Another duty of the judicial branch of our government is to ensure that the laws which are written and passed by Congress then approved by the President are constitutional.
Judges exist to protect your constitutionally guarantied liberties.
Lets say, we as a country amend our Constitution to say gays can’t marry. Who and what is next.
When the they came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out;I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews, I did not speak out; I was not a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.
If you let them take the rights from one of us, you risk eventually them coming for your rights. Fight against this abuse of the constitution, because sooner or later it might be you they come for.
About Bill Larson 
Bill Larson is the Creator and Publisher of Clarksville Online, and works as a network administrator for Compu-Net Enterprises. He is politically and socially active in the community.
Bill is a member of the Friends of Dunbar Cave, and an associate of the Clarksville Free Thinkers for Peace and Civil Liberties.
You can reach him via telephone at 931-920-0043 or via the email address below.
Sections: Issues, Politics
Topics: Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Constitution, Culture, Discrimination, Gay Marriage, National Politics, Politics
2 Responses to “The risks of amending the constitution to define marriage”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Official Sites
- City of Clarksville, TN
- Clarksville Department of Electricity
- Clarksville Gas and Water Department
- Clarksville Montgomery County School System
- Clarksville Police Department
- Clarksville, Montgomery County Economic Development Council
- Clarksville, TN Ordinances
- Fort Campbell, Ky
- Montgomery County, Tennessee
- Montgomery County, Tennessee Sheriff’s Office
- Parks after Dark
Local Community
Affiliated Web Sites
June 15th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
Most amendments to the Constitution EXPAND rights and freedoms, not limit them. Take for example: women’s sufferage, lowering the voting age, and abolishing slavery.
It woud be a dangerous thing to start LIMITING rights in a document that was intended to define FREEDOMS for ALL people.
Its not a ’special right’. I didnt choose to be straight. I just am. I can only assume that gay people didnt choose to be gay, they just are.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:43 pm
Even when Constitutional amendments limit freedoms like prohibition did, they limited them for all citizens of this nation not just some. Never before in our history has an amendment which would reduce the rights for one group or class of individuals been proposed much less passed. This should not be under serious consideration much less pass. What happens when a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional.