Opinion:

Should we use the Constitution to LIMIT rights?

Chris at the Noble Pundit has explained the danger inherent in a marriage amendment to the Constitution very well:

A marriage amendment is a banana republic tactic. One of the reasons why our Constitution has succeeded where so many others have failed is because it is limited in scope and serves to limit the scope of government, not of the people. Think about it. There has really only been one attempt to Constitutionally tell the people what they cannot do: Prohibition. It is also the only amendment that has ever been repealed. One of the goals of the Founders, I believe, was to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority. The marriage amendment would do the exact opposite. It would categorically deny rights to the minority at the direction of the majority. It is an extremely dangerous precedent to set and one that I certainly would not even attempt to set over something like gay marriage. I just can't believe that gay marriage is an issue over which it is worth risking the very foundations of our society, respect for the rights of minorities. It is not a timeless issue, it's a fad issue.

If Bush and Congress believes that there is a problem with judges misinterpreting the laws, then pass a one the is absolutely clear like "Marriage shall be defined as the union between one man and one woman only. The union of two or more men or two or more women shall not be regarded as a legal marriage and no judge shall rule otherwise." Dump all the caveats. Get rid of all the weasel words. Make it plain and clear what the intention of the law is and then, if a judge ignores it, take it all the way to the Supreme Court. Just don't wreck the sanctity of the Constitution along the way. (For what it's worth, I am still mildly supportive of gay marriage if it is instituted with reform to the marriage laws for both hetero- and homo-sexual marriages to make the institution more of an institution again and less of an issue of convienence. See here and here)

(There's a lot more of his opinion on the State of the Union address in Chris' post. Read the whole thing, as they say.)

This is the same problem I have with the anti-flag burning amendment that keeps coming up from the right wing. Do we really want to start a precedent of making amendments that limit the freedoms of the people instead of limiting the powers of the government? That seems a bit contrary to the stated goals of the right wing, to "get the government off the backs of the people". Using Constitutional amendments to define marriage or outlaw behaviors is like using a blowtorch to light a birthday cake candle. Marriage is an institution that is a part of our culture, and given how well the government has fared in other areas, it seems that marriage is in MORE danger from government involvement than it would be with government neglect. The Constitution is the fundamental law of the nation, and amending it should be undertaken only with great care and only for important issues like ending slavery, not to limit the freedoms of the people or define institutions that the government shouldn't be involved in to begin with.

Posted by Jack at 14:48 on Wednesday 21 January 2004 | Trackbacks (0)