Look at it this way. Banning homosexual marriage is against both the principle of the equality of the sexes which is mandated in federal statute, and against the constitutionally granted right of women to vote--IE, the placing of women as full equals without exception under the law of our Republic.Cairber wrote:My apoligies, kinda lost track on the thread topic. About the amendment...its complete idiocracy. I cant imagine teaching the amendments, reading the civil war amendments and following that with this one. I think back to my con law class...and I can just see the arguments now. Marriage is no where in the constitution. I guess people could argue that it falls as a "zone of privacy"...but then that would completely destroy the argument for the amendment. I was at the national constitution center a few weeks back..there is an area where you can vote about propositions via post-it notes on the issue board. For this one, almost all of them said NO to the amendment. There were so many notes you could hardly see the board. One of the people working the area told me that they just put it up the day before and they've had to change the board twice already.
The FMA is a dangerous in the fact that it enshrines inequality into the law. It says, essentially, that "there are differences between the sexes large enough to warrant special legislation to define them." I ask you--do you really want a "fact" like that enshrined in our constitutional law? Have you thought of the implications of what it means? If the differences between men and women are so great that they must be constitutionally defined, what sort of ammo is that for misogynists who'd like to roll back numerous gains of the past fifty years or even more?
A law which is based on the principle of discriminating by sex--by saying what biological combinations of legally recognized couples can exist--is ultimately saying that "Yes, there are differences between the sexes that matter enough for us to put into law." Obviously there are differences, nobody is trying to deny that. But when you legally define difference in constitutional law, you are essentially going against the Supreme Court ruling of Brown Vs. Board of Education--you're saying that it's possible to have one set of laws for men and one set of laws for women. Once you start defining legal contracts based on sex, you're opening up a very dangerous box of worms.
Not what I meant, and put in context, I don't think it convayed that. I don't think everyone needs to be apart of FLAG or some other group to be unbiased against gays. And I don't think they have to be super donkey cool with it, just that they understand that they have no right to oppress another group over something that is none of their bussiness.
