CASE FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT: John LeSueur

[John LeSueur is an environmental and natural resources attorney in Phoenix, Arizona.]

Here, as I see it, is our case for amending the constitution. (This is not, however, an argument that the FMA is the right amendment.)

Premise 1: Either the Massachussets Supreme Court and the mayors of several prominent cities accross the United States are right (the equal protection clause in their respective State constitutions requires them to recognize gay marriage) or they are wrong.

Premise 2: If a person thinks they are right, then that person should support gay marriage (at least in those states). (Note: it is at least theoretically possible for a person to argue believe that gay marriage is a constitutional right-by way of the equal protection clause-and yet believe that it shouldn't be a constitutional right. Such a person, will be an advocate for state or federal constitutional amendments.)

Premise 3: Almost all Democratic Politicians say they are opposed to same-sex marriage.

Preliminary Conclusion: Therefore, almost all democratic politicians must believe that the equal protection clause (both state and federal) does not create a right to same sex marriage.


Premise 4: If the MSJC and the mayors in several states are wrong, they are taking the law into their own hands instead of leaving the issue to the legislature.

Premise 5: If this state supreme court and these executive officials are taking the law into their own hands, they are depriving the people of their State of a Republican form of government.

Premise 6: The US Constitution guarantees the states a Republican form of government.

Therefore: The US Constitution should be amended in order to effectuate that guarantee.

Thus, I think it is inconsistent for a person to say that they don't support gay marriage, and yet say that they don't support amending the US Constitution in face of our current situation.
posted by Eve at 3:50 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home