Serbia, Montenegro, 2004 Elections, & the Gay Marriage Amendment

Serbia & Montenegro



The former country of Serbia & Montenegro is now 2 countries: Serbia, and Montenegro.  Currently the 2 countires are finalizing the process of separation, with new national flags hoisted today.  Serbia & Montenegro has been united since the fall of the Socialist Federal Repulic of Yugoslavia in 1992, where they reorganized into the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.  In 2003 they again reorganized as Serbia & Montenegro (a confederation), officially known as the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro.  The separation of these countries will bring the worldwide total to 192 soverign countries, pending acceptance into the United Nations.

Google News link

---

Did Bush Steal the 2004 Elections?

An interesting read from Rolling Stone, check it out.
Rolling Stone -- Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

---

S. J. Res 1: Marraige Protection Act aka The Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

Lots of talk is running about surrounding the upcoming vote on this proposal.  Here is what the bill says (from www.govtrack.us):

JOINT RESOLUTION
 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
SECTION 1. This article may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment'.
SECTION 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

Reports are that measure won't pass, as the requisite amount of votes will probably not be met.  The government proves once again that they are a body of discriminating dinosaurs by even proposing this resolution.  A measure like this may have stood a chance 30 years ago, but the acceptance of gays is slowly rising, and these resolutions probably won't ever pass on a federal level. 

What are my feelings on this?  Well, I'm against government intervention in our private lives, so based on that alone, I'm against this resolution.  I'm also against willy-nilly amendments to the Constitution, which is what this is.  Amendments to the Constituion need to have long-term longevity, and free of discriminatory elements.  An amendment must be something that will always be pertinent, we learned this with the prohibition amendment.  Also, the last time I checked, gays were people too.  If we restrict who they can marry, aren't we restricting the premise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?  Sure, that's not in the Constitution, but it is one our founding principles as a country.

I've also read the arguements from those supporting this measure, which is deeply rooted in the religious right.  Here's a newsflash -- not everyone is a conservative Christian, and not everyone believes that gays are sinners.  In fact, there are Christian churches (and other religions) that have gay priests, not many, but they do exist.  Gay marriage does not hurt anyone, and no, it does not reduce the legitimacy of marriage.  Your marriage is not in jeopardy because Bruce & Jim are married.  If they want to marry, they should be allowed.  The only institutions that should limit marriages are the many churches, since that's the origin of this amendment in the first place.  In the end, this proposal is just a distraction from more important issues.

Google News Link
S. J. Res 1 at govtrack
H. J. Res 39 (the House counterpart) at govtrack