With Mike Huckabee being somehow considered a more viable presidential candidate than Ron Paul, the 10 million dollar question has been raised again: should we amend the Constitution to reflect “God’s standards?” Of course, it was a blanket statement made on a campaign stump with no elaboration, so we can only wonder what he meant.
From its very inception to today, the Constitution already jives with the word of God, falling just short of evoking Him in the preamble and including parables in red ink. I’m not sure where the problem lays, then.
Is it the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech and unrestricted worship? Probably not, although it does fail to mention one particular religion as an example. So a good Huckamendment (patent pending) could be a margin note reading “*cough*Baptists*cough*.”
Articles I, II, and III concern the three branches of the federal government-how they’re elected/chosen, their powers and how to can them. I suppose a vote by the people isn’t very godly, but then god hasn’t picked many candidates. Despite our best efforts to appease the Big Guy, He still has yet to register to vote, but probably to avoid jury duty. So, there’s no real Huckamendment of substance in those parts.
Pop Quiz: What are the three branches of the federal government?
If you had to look up the answer, you must report back to the third grade immediately.
I guess there’s the 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition. But plenty of God-fearing religions partake in drinking, so that can’t be the issue. Hell, I wouldn’t bother saying my bedtime prayers if there wasn’t a bowl of Beerios waiting for me when I wake up.
I find it hard to believe that God would really want to revise the current wording of the Constitution. The whole document is all namby-pamby, giving away rights like that kid that would eat bugs on a dare. All the revisions so far have been to make it nicer when it seemed a little harsh (i.e., counting slaves as three-fifths of a human being, taking booze away, not allowing certain people to vote and etc.).
So if the problem isn’t with the current wording, he must want to add something. What could it be?
Oh, right. The marriage amendment.
The problem is that the Constitution is like a smug historic neighborhood: in order to add something, it has to match the rest of the red-brick colonials dotting the cityscape. Even the last amendment in 1992 reads in a similar language to that used in 1789:
Amendment 27 – Limiting Congressional Pay Increases. Ratified 5/7/1992.
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
–The United States Constitution, The U.S. Constitution Online
So how would a marriage Huckamendment fit in the standards of the Constitutional Home Owners committee?
First off, he’d have to figure out what kind of marriage he means. Sure, the goal is to set marriage as between a man and a woman, but there are various heterosexual marriage arrangements.
Would love be a requirement?
That rules out proposing because it’s been five years and you kind of owe her. Or what about, “I’m not getting any younger, and I can’t see myself nailing anyone hotter” as a reason? And there are still marriages whose goal is financial gain or American citizenship.
Also, does “love” mean that state of enamorment that pisses off dictionary writers and poetry critics? Or does it mean sex? Oh, boy. Looks like we’re gonna have to define the birds and the bees on parchment with calligraphy.
Is this marriage permanent?
Would divorcing mean you’ve violated a federal law? It’s bad enough that your kids and parents are giving you grief about “not working at it,” but now you have to report to Leavenworth?
Is the purpose to make children?
Well, what about infertile couples? What about elderly people remarrying? Would they be required to adopt children? The catch is that, in order to defend marriage as between a man and a woman, you have to explicitly state that the union is to produce children. Of course, you’d also have to outlaw cloning and surrogate motherhood to close the gay and lesbian loophole.
What he’s left with is a very long and conditional amendment that is already confusing before you add the old school “shalls,” “wherewiths” and “infringes.” But how do you follow up over 200 years of laws dedicated to structuring our central government and essential rights with, “When a man and a woman love each other very much …?”
To close this column before it gets any more out of hand, it’s a good thing Huckabee was probably talking out of his ass because there’s no way we can plausibly add a marriage amendment without looking retarded to later historians.