If you have "no place to go," come here!

GREAT Idea: Let's Vote On ALL Civil Rights!

I'm sure that, at every step along the way to this decision, this court took what they thought was the right, proper, legal and constitutional path to wind up where they got to. But the end result has plopped them square in a bog of quicksand:

The same court that made Massachusetts the first state to legalize same-sex marriage ruled Monday that a proposal for a constitutional amendment that could ban future gay marriages can move forward.

The tiger in the middle of the room that nobody wants to mention is the last case that had the whole country discussing what constituted a right and proper and legal marriage (as God intended it, because these things always come down to religion in the end), the delightfully named Love v Virginia. The one where the debate was whether we should legalize marriage between two people of different races.

Somehow we have bought into a notion that gay rights and civil rights are two totally different things for totally different audiences. Gay rights are only About faggotry, whereas Civil rights only apply to citizens of the sable hue, as the expression used to be. We can't use the term "civil rights" for gay rights cases, we are told, because blacks find this extremely offensive. I wonder if you tracked that meme down to its origins, where those origins [cough cough Mr. Falwell? cough cough Mr. Robertson? cough cough Mr. Scaife? cough cough Mrs. Schlafley? cough cough spit] would turn out to be?

Sure as hell not Dr. King, I'm fairly sure of that. And even claiming to trace the righteousness-of-discrimination back to Jesus would seem to be a challenge because I have yet to be presented with a New Testament citation wherein the Lord said it was okay to hate on queers.

But back to this court case. It says basically that while freedom to marry is currently the law of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, and will continue to be, the Constitution can be amended to make it no longer so. To withdraw a civil right from a certain segment of the population is something that it is okay to decide by majority rule. So what I'm thinkin' is, WOW! What other such matters should we contemplate deciding this way?

We have amended the US constitution to take away a previously legal right only once, with the 18th. Prohibition. For a look at how well that turned out go read the 21st ["Oopsie! Never Mind!" Amendment] or watch a good batch of James Cagney movies.

This case in Massachusetts, in my humble, not-living-there, not-legally-educated opinion, is not likely to succeed. But the precedent as currently phrased by the court seems very bad to me anyway. If they have to bend the neck to the "religious origins of the American legal system" as some claim, why can't they just walk the clear, straightforward path to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and quit there?

No votes yet