Hess...
Our constitution guaranteed the right to property...
Sorry for the delay. Getting back to the topic, the Constitution, slavery, gay marriage et al:
I think a beauty of the Constitution is that it was layed out in a manner to make room for the nation and thoughts and opinions to mature.
If we are ALL created equal then it is simply a matter of time for us to recognize us all, ALL, as equal. Sounds simple but it's important; it represents breathing space.
It was simply not practical to abolish slavery on day one just as it was not practical to ensure the rights of women to vote, but these came to pass, certainly not without struggle and national pain but nontheless, freedom for all came to pass.
Islam had to deal the reality that slavery was specifically condoned.
We argued, in our best lawyerly traditions over how long we could deal with the farce that a man was not a man.
Abortion is now treated like Taney treated slavery so many years ago; by calling it something else to keep the peace. Well, any rational person knows damn well somebodys right to life, liberty and persuit of happiness is being violated.
The 2nd amendment is violated in similar fashion. It says, clearly, (wetted finger stuck to the winds)...?
I like quoting Harry Blackmon (pretty sure it was him).
He said, paraphrasing, "At the end of the day, the Constitution says what the people want it to say".
We might have been a much more moral nation in 1857 in some ways, what with no MTV, but we tried to say, officially, that a man was not a citizen of a state because he COULDN'T be a citizen because he was inherently created UN-equal.
So, gay marriage today is in no way, to me, anywhere near as big a deal, morally, socially or as a simple matter of right or wrong as slavery once was.
Gay people are citizens of the United States and are afforded equal protection inherently in our Constitutin as a whole and specifically in the 14th amendment.
So, the question, is marriage a right, like voting and property rights, due process rights and all the rest or is it some sort of club that can properly choose it's members?
As a religious 'club' I think it's clear that a given church has no obligation to admit those that don't satisfy their rules.
As a social contract, two people who wish to be recognized as a single public entity (married) attendant with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities afforded that status are ensured equal protection as I see it.
And I still think it is silly. I think marriage is between a man and a woman but I can't argue it on Constitutional grounds. Quite the contrary.
If marriage is not A man and A woman then where can we reasonably define it? And on what grounds? As any two adults? Isn't that just as discriminating as saying it is only for a man and a woman? How can we say 'no' to three or four or more if it is simply just another social contract?
As I say, it used to be understood by all, and accepted pretty much, that a black man was not a man. He was little more than a farm animal and under no circumstances could a woman vote.
I think the republic is safer than ever. We just live in interesting times.
Hmmm, I'm not too sure about the first 2 points, since I'm not a lawyer, attorney, whatever, but I imagine Ken is poring over his websites to prove or disprove them.
I'm pained to admit it, however, I see no relevance or germaness to the current topic at hand: To whit: "We must, in all accordance with due process of judicial law allow these human beings to subject themselves to further pain and illness to themselves, and to others with whom they choose to intimately associate themselves with."
