(2006-06-05) — A revised version of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, currently circulating among legal experts on Capitol Hill, would define marriage beyond the simple ‘union of a man and a woman.’

The revision comes in response to critics who have blasted an amendment backed by the Bush administration as “too narrow.”

That one, which the president will endorse in a speech today, simply says that states don’t have to recognize any ‘marriage’ performed in another state that is not between a man and a woman — thus banning marriage between homosexuals and among polygamists.

The new amendment builds on the text of the current one, stating: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.”

But it then goes on to say, “Marriage shall not be construed as a simple business contract, nor as a temporary bond until something better comes along. Marriage is not the result of a chemical reaction in the brain sparked by visual or physical stimuli.”

“Marriage in the United States shall consist in hard work, as a man and a woman, struggling against their own selfishness, shall submit to one another in love.”

“For the purposes of this amendment, love shall be defined as a self-sacrificial commitment in which one person lays down his life for the good of another, and in that submission, sacrifice and duty, finds true joy.”

“Marriage shall continue from the day of the wedding service, until the day that the body of at least one spouse assumes room temperature.”

“Marriage is further defined as a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman, each created in the image of God and made for each other. It is based on, and therefore anchored in, an eternal and transcendent pattern established before the foundation of the world.”

“As a result, true marriage is a bond between a man and a woman that is created and sustained by the one who gives life, who is love, and who upholds all things by His power.”

“Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, shall be construed to alter any of this, no matter what legislators, judges or other persons may do.”

(2006-06-03) — The American Society of Professional Journalists today said it would offer major news organizations like CNN and the New York Times a “core values” training course in the wake of an incident in Haditha, Iraq.

The journalist training comes as the Pentagon offers its own brand of values reinforcement for U.S. troops.

“We’re just going to cover the basics,” said an unnamed trainer, “We’ll reinforce the bedrock values that 99.9 percent of journalists already live by, but may not always remember under the stress, fear and isolation of war.”

The following is a partial list of topics from the “core wartime values” course for journalists:

-Hold the presses! Innocent until accused.
-How to use the word “alleged” and still get your point across.
-Finding a quotable Congressman to say what you mean.
-Top-notch news analysis in a word: Vietnam.

(2006-06-02) — Congressman John Murtha today offered to give “core values training” to al Qaeda fighters and other members of the Iraqi insurgency to complement a similar Pentagon initiative for U.S. troops.

The Pennsylvania Democrat, a former Marine, said he is concerned that without proper values training the pressure of the illegal American occupation of Iraq might cause otherwise stable insurgents to ‘blow up’, possibly killing innocent civilians.

“I can teach an insurgent how to keep his head about him, when everyone else is losing theirs,” said Rep. Murtha, who served in the Marine Corps.

The former Marine, a Democrat, noted that most insurgents already understand the value of family.

“In the U.S. we have only one annual ‘take your child to work day’, but in Iraq, the children often accompany their freedom-fighting fathers to the job site,” the retired Marine said, “It’s inspiring to see how an Iraqi man treats his home as a refuge and his family as a shield, while our Marines neglect their families so they can run around with their buddies in a foreign country.”