WHY THE CONSTITUTION? David Benkof

SSM advocates have been talking a lot about the sanctity of constitutions lately:

"Don't enshrine discrimination in the Constitution!"

"This is the first time a Constitution would be used to take away rights, rather than confer them."

"This is too small an issue to amend the Constitution over."

The problem is, the current political situation gives SSM opponents no choice other than what our president calls "the Constitutional process." Believe me, right-of-center politicians (and especially the White House) haven't been eager to deal with same-sex marriage at all. But gays sued in court, won in Massachusetts, and now the only way those of us who don't want same-sex marriage can do anything politically is to amend a constitution - the Massachusetts one or the federal one.

The people who say "Do what you will but don't touch the Constitution" are really saying "Have your opinion but don't do anything about it." It's disingenous and unfair. Had SSM proponents turned to legislatures or the initiative process rather than courts, we would have had a much more democratic process. Since gays chose the courts instead, they have to be prepared for the consequences: those of us who disagree with SSM are going to respond without apology by using the only political option we have left: amending a Constitution or two.
posted by Eve at 11:09 AM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home