02-26-2004, 11:32 PM
The constitution, bill of rights, and US law are very clear about discrimination based on race, colour, age and sexual orientation.
They are as clear as mud in this regard. The only thing in the Constitution which even comes close to what you claim, outside of the specific case of voting rights, is the "equal protection" clause of the fourteenth amendment (now famous for it's role in the last presidential election). That occurs in section 1 of an amendment in which section 2 explicitly discriminates based on ethnicity (Indians) and age (21). The Bill of Rights doesn't come into play here at all from what I can see. It seems to me that all of these types of discrimination are still commonplace in federal law and policy. There are still "Indian Reservations". Minority contractors get preferential treatment during federal bids. You have to be 35 to be elected President. You can't join the military if you are known to be in a homosexual relationship.
President Bush isn't inventing a new idea here. As it stands, gay marriages can't exist in most of the United States. For that matter, proof of homosexual activity could still be grounds for criminal prosecution in most states (although I don't know how those laws would hold up in a contemporary appeals court ruling). What Bush is doing is playing politics with an issue where more than 50% of the populous seem to be leaning his way.
Anyone who's marriage is threatened by what two total strangers are or are not allowed to do should take a step back and consider what their own marriage is based on.
It's not a personal threat but rather a societal one.
They are as clear as mud in this regard. The only thing in the Constitution which even comes close to what you claim, outside of the specific case of voting rights, is the "equal protection" clause of the fourteenth amendment (now famous for it's role in the last presidential election). That occurs in section 1 of an amendment in which section 2 explicitly discriminates based on ethnicity (Indians) and age (21). The Bill of Rights doesn't come into play here at all from what I can see. It seems to me that all of these types of discrimination are still commonplace in federal law and policy. There are still "Indian Reservations". Minority contractors get preferential treatment during federal bids. You have to be 35 to be elected President. You can't join the military if you are known to be in a homosexual relationship.
President Bush isn't inventing a new idea here. As it stands, gay marriages can't exist in most of the United States. For that matter, proof of homosexual activity could still be grounds for criminal prosecution in most states (although I don't know how those laws would hold up in a contemporary appeals court ruling). What Bush is doing is playing politics with an issue where more than 50% of the populous seem to be leaning his way.
Anyone who's marriage is threatened by what two total strangers are or are not allowed to do should take a step back and consider what their own marriage is based on.
It's not a personal threat but rather a societal one.