"It's not about politics or discrimination," Allard told colleagues on the floor of the U.S. Senate. "It's about marriage and democracy."I don't understand the connection between marriage and democracy. I thought in a democracy, all people are equal. If marriage is a democratic value, then shouldn't everyone be able to choose their spouse? The Democrats have their talking points in order. Instead of arguing against a prohibition of same-sex marriage, they are talking about all the critical issues the Senate should be debating instead of marriage. Sen. Harry Reid issued this statement today :
I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. I believe in our federal system of government, described to me in college as a central whole divided among self governing parts. Those self governing parts--the 50 states--have already decided this on their own in state after state. ....So why are we being directed by the President and this Republican majority to debate an Amendment to the Constitution, a document inspired more than two centuries ago? Why would we be asked to change this American masterpiece? Will it next be to constitutionally dictate the cause of divorce, or military service, or even what America's religion must be?While I'm pleased to see Senator Reid advocate against treating the Constitution like a rough draft, I can't help but wonder why he had to throw in his personal views opposing gay marriage. And, what if the states weren't busy passing laws against it and we weren't in the midst of a war and economic downturn? Would he then support Senate consideration of the ban? The Democrats want to reclaim themselves as the party of values. Then they ought to champion constitutionally guaranteed equality for all. That's the bedrock of our Constitution and our democracy.