How about a constitutional amendment banning heterosexual divorce?

I've been listening to the Alliance for Marriage press conference as they push for passage of the marriage amendment today. The first thing that I noticed is that almost every person that spoke on their behalf today was a religious leader of some sort, and again they were dancing around their true agenda. If you listen to what they are saying out loud, you would think that their support of the marriage amendment was designed to help ensure that children in america don't grow up in single parent families, and that their support has nothing to do with the desire to enshrine their own religious views into the constitution to limit the rights of an oppressed minority. They keep saying it's not religious bigotry, or social bigotry, but a genuine concern for the state of the american family, which by their own descriptions is in a sorry state of decline.

Well, if the american family is in a state of decline, it isn't because of same sex couples folks. Same sex marriage is not a cause of heterosexual divorce, or heterosexual promescuity outside of marriage, or rising numbers of unwed teenagers becoming parents. Remember that WE are the minority, and the overwhelming role model for young people in this country is now, and has always been heterosexual marriage. If it's in decline, don't point your finger at us and try to use it to justify writing your bigoted agenda into the constitution.

If the goal of this legislation is to prevent fractured families and single parent homes, then how about a ban against HETEROSEXUAL divorce? It makes about as much sense. If your goal is to "save" heterosexual marriage, then why be looking at relationships that have nothing to do with it and hoping that by diminsihing them, you somehow improve your own familial relationships? The answer is really pretty simple. They are not seeking to strengthing families, or protect children. They are trying to force their particular religious opinions on everyone, in every state. But they can't SAY that, not overtly anyway. They have to make their argument be about something other than their religious views, because they know that making the issue based on those views would preclude it from being written into the constitution based on the first sentnce of the bill of rights.

What we're seeing now is an attempt to amend the constitution by using the back door, because the separation of church and state is blocking the front door.