|
|
|
A Matter of Rights EDITORIAL, San Francisco Chronicle from the Web, February 12, 2004 THIS NATION has a proud history of amending its Constitution to end discrimination and to expand individual rights. Examples include the abolition of slavery (XIII, 1865), the expansion of due process and equal protection (XIV, 1868) and the extension of voting rights to all races (XV, 1870), women (XIX, 1920) and 18-year-olds (XXVI, 1971). The few exceptions have either been narrow (such as limiting a president to two terms, XXII, 1951) or an unmitigated disaster -- namely Prohibition (XVIII, 1919), which was repealed in 1933. The notion of using a constitutional amendment to constrict the rights of a targeted group of people -- defined by sexual orientation -- is plainly abhorrent to American values and traditions. Same-sex marriage is moving to the forefront because advocates on both sides of the issue are coming to the realization that the U.S. Constitution, as currently composed, broadly protects the right of gays and lesbians. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, dissenting in last year's ruling that struck down a Texas sodomy law, acknowledged that the majority's use of the 14th Amendment's liberty clause to protect gay relationships had cleared the legal path for same-sex marriage. "What justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising 'the liberty protected by the Constitution'?'' Scalia asked in his dissent. That ruling looms large today as Massachusetts legislators gather in a constitutional convention to address an order by that state's high court to sanction a form of gay marriage. Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, also cites the U.S. Constitution in his legislation to allow same-sex marriage in this state. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is inviting a court fight in his bold request for the city clerk to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples -- in open defiance of state law. At some point, perhaps soon, the question of same-sex marriage will reach the U.S. Supreme Court. The fact that proponents are trying to provoke that showdown -- and opponents are working to avert it -- is telling. The constitutional basis for same-sex marriage, state and federal, is clearly more solid than public support for the concept. President Bush is said to be on the brink of supporting the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. His main Democratic challengers, including front-runner Sen. John Kerry, are in an uncomfortable spot -- struggling to reconcile their support for expanded rights with a continuing resistance to a new definition of marriage. As Leno pointed out, the public discomfort with legal advancements for minority groups is hardly unprecedented. Other milestones in civil rights, including the landmark 1954 Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education ruling that outlawed segregated schools, have been greeted by widespread outrage or even violence. But if this constitutional amendment were to pass, it would be the first time in American history that our Constitution was amended to shrink civil rights. Equal protection for gays and lesbians is not a flaw in the U.S. Constitution. It is essential to the very concept of guaranteeing "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for all Americans. http://www.sfgate.com
|
Send mail to
email@gaypasg.org with questions or comments about this web site.
|