You know ... I will admit to being totally and completely befuddled as to what the president's proposal to amend the Constitution has to do with Justice Scalia's refusal to recuse himself from Cheney's case. The connections do seem just a tad tenuous, at the least.
That said ... Congressman McDermott is impressive in this little bit, isn't he?
Congressman Jim McDermott - Representing Washington State's 7th Congressional District - Speeches
Regarding Justice Scalia's Refusal to Recuse Himself From Hearing Case Concerning the Vice President
House of Representatives - February 25, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the President's presidential prayer team is urging us to "pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles.''
With that in mind, I thought I would remind the body of the biblical principles they are talking about.
Marriage shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. That is from Genesis 29:17-28.
Secondly, marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. That is II Samuel 5:13 and II Chronicles 11:21.
A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. That is Deuteronomy 22:13.
Marriage of a believer and a nonbeliever shall be forbidden. That is Genesis 24:3.
Finally, it says that since there is no law that can change things, divorce is not possible, and finally, if a married man dies, his brother has to marry his sister-in-law.
Purely a side note: the difference from one representative's site to another is really quite striking. For example, although it doesn't matter to me in general what Representative McDermott's position on various issues is, I can find that information on his site. By contrast, Representative Danny Davis, who actually represents my district, has no such section on his site. He does have a section on legislation sponsored and supported, but that's not quite the same thing as simply telling you what his position on the issues of the day are. The legislation list is also highly selective; some of the stuff leaves you wondering why on earth you'd mention it. After all, whatever the content, a resolution "Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the ongoing need to provide every qualified American with equal access to opportunity in education, business, and employment and the indispensability of Affirmative action programs in securing such equal access" doesn't actually do a damn thing, even if it passes. (For some odd reason, it's languishing in the Subcommittee on the Constitution, despite the fact that an "expressing the sense" resolution doesn't rise to the level of actual legislation.)
Posted by iain at March 01, 2004 12:40 PM
